Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for….. (Due date – Sunday 28th January)

Annotated Bibliography

As part of your Doctoral Seminar for this set of weeks, you are participating in a seminar-style discussion about the weekly topics. You must address 5 of the attached Dissertations in the prescribed format. As a related exercise, submit an annotated bibliography of the 5 resources you referred to this week. For each dissertation entry, be sure to include the full APA citation and address the following :

1. Scope

2. Purpose

3. Philosophical Approach

4. Underlying Assumptions

5. Research

6. Limitations

7. Opportunities for further inquiry

8. Validity of use

General Topic: Sustainability and Community participation

Dissertation Resources:

Ananga, E. O. (2015). The role of community participation in water production and management: Lessons from sustainable aid in Africa international sponsored water schemes in Kisumu, Kenya (Order No. 3733847). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1737850915). Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1737850915?accountid=14872

Arata, H. L. (2016). When public participation isn’t enough: Community resilience and the failure of colorblind environmental justice policies (Order No. 10191291). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1859517941). Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1859517941?accountid=14872

Mazzurco, A. (2016). Methods to facilitate community participation in humanitarian engineering projects: Laying the foundation for a learning platform (Order No. 10172873). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1833187345). Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1833187345?accountid=14872

Godana, G. D. (2014). The rhetoric of community participation: NGOs’ discourses and deliberative practices with communities in Ethiopia (Order No. 3666194). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1640889019). Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1640889019?accountid=14872

Barclay, N. (2016). The role of community participation for green stormwater infrastructure development (Order No. 10152046). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1835116804). Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1835116804?accountid=14872

Graduate School Form
30 Updated 12/26/2015
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared
By
Entitled
For the degree of
Is approved by the final examining committee:
To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Thesis/Dissertation
Agreement, Publication Delay, and Certification Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32),
this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy of
Integrity in Research” and the use of copyright material.
Approved by Major Professor(s):
Approved by:
Head of the Departmental Graduate Program Date
Andrea Mazzurco
Methods To Facilitate Community Participation in Humanitarian Engineering Projects: Laying the Foundations of a Learnign
Platform.
Doctor of Philosophy
Brent Jesiek Carla Zoltowski
Chair
Robin Adams

Jon Leydens

Alice Pawley
Brent Jesiek
David Radcliffe 7/21/2016

METHODS TO FACILITATE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN
HUMANITARIAN ENGINEERING PROJECTS: LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR
A LEARNING PLATFORM
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Purdue University
by
Andrea Mazzurco
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2016
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 – 1346
ProQuest
Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest Number:
10172873
10172873
2016

To Fernanda, whose undying love and support has made this dissertation possible.
To my parents, whose unconditional love has supported me my entire life.
To all of those who wish to practice engineering in a way that benefits underserved
citizens.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I come to the close of my time as a Ph.D. student, I am fully aware that all my
successes as a student, scholar, educator, and person have been made possible by the
support of so many people that stood by me during my academic and life journey.
I thank my advisor, Brent Jesiek. Brent has welcomed me in his research group in
a difficult time in my life, when I felt I had lost my way and did not know where I
belonged. Since the beginning, he made feel at home, making life away from family,
friends, and love much easier. He nurtured and supported me for over four years,
allowing me to grow as a student, educator, and scholar. I will always remember the
times when he would read all my work even while travelling in an airplane. His open
door policy allowed me to meet with him anytime I needed to discuss anything, from
research, to courses, and life. He always advocated for me, enabling me to obtain many
awards and continue my professional career. Brent is not just a mentor to me, but he is
also one of the dearest friends I have in USA and I will miss his companionship a lot
when I will move abroad.
I would like to thank my other committee members as well: Robin Adams, Jon
Leydens, Alice Pawley, and Carla Zoltowski. I feel lucky and blessed to have worked
with such wonderful and supportive people. Thank you to Robin for your continual

insight into research methodologies. Thank you to Jon for your support in all phases of
my research and professional career, and for always chatting with me in Italian, which
helped me feel always less homesick. I especially thank you for always being able to
arrange your schedule to meet with me and attend committee meetings, especially given
the time differences and your busy schedule. Thank you to Alice for being my critical
friend, always pushing me to meet the highest standards of research quality. Thank you to
Carla for supporting me along the way and for sharing your amazing research and design
expertise with me. Thank you all for your support. I could have not made it without your
guidance and assistance.
I also want to acknowledge the 14 participants in this study, without whom I
would not be able to conclude my dissertation. I hope this dissertation can support you in
your future endeavors.
I would like to thank my engineering education Ph.D. student colleagues for their
friendship and informal support. I specifically would like to thank: James Huff, Julia
Thompson, Natascha Trellinger, Cole Joslyn, Canek Phillips, Genisson Coutinho, Mel
Chua, Tasha Zepherin, Qin Zhu, and Neha Choudhary. Moreover, I would like to thank
the entire GEEC research group for their support.
I would also like to acknowledge Purdue ENE faculty who supported through my
academic career: Ruth Streveler, Allison Godwin, David Radcliffe, Jennifer DeBoer,
Heidi Diefes-Dux, Morgan Hynes, Muhsin Menekse, and Matthew Ohland. I would like
to especially thank Mary Pilotte for always believing in me, supporting me in my First
Year Engineering experience, and being one of my greatest champions.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for their amazing support in this journey.
To my parents, thank you for your continuous encouragement and for always believing in
me. To Fernanda, thank you for your love and for always being next to me. Although the
many difficulties of our long distance relationship, you never questioned my choice to
pursue a Ph.D. and always have supported me in my academic and professional career.
Thank you for choosing to follow me wherever we end up being. I look forward to
spending the rest of my life at your side.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. x
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. xii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background and Research Questions…………………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 My Personal Journey…………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.3 Structure of Dissertation ……………………………………………………………………………. 10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………….. 13
2.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
2.2 What is Humanitarian Engineering? ……………………………………………………………. 13
2.3 Brief History of Engineers’ Involvement in Humanitarianism ………………………… 15
2.4 Humanitarian Engineering in US Engineering Education ………………………………. 19
2.5 Important Considerations in HE …………………………………………………………………. 23
2.6 Participation Frameworks ………………………………………………………………………….. 25
2.6.1 Who Makes Decisions?……………………………………………………………………. 27
2.6.2 How Does Information Flow? ………………………………………………………….. 28
2.6.3 How Much Weight Does Information Have on Decisions? ………………….. 28
2.6.4 What Roles Does Each Counterpart Play in Decision-Making? ……………. 29
2.6.5 How Does Participation Change During the Design Project? ……………….. 30
2.6.6 What Methods Could Be Used to Involve Communities? …………………….. 32
2.7 Challenges to choose the appropriate degree of participation …………………………. 34
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………… 38

vii

Page
3.1 Research Objective and Questions………………………………………………………………. 38
3.2 Research Design Overview ………………………………………………………………………… 39
3.3 Phase 1a: Qualitative Systematized Review …………………………………………………. 42
3.3.1 Selection Criteria ……………………………………………………………………………. 43
3.3.2 Search and Selection Process ……………………………………………………………. 46
3.3.3 Reliability of Selection Process ………………………………………………………… 49
3.3.4 Analysis and Synthesis of Selected Papers …………………………………………. 50
3.4 Phase 1b: Classification of Methods ……………………………………………………………. 51
3.4.1 Collecting the Final Set of Methods ………………………………………………….. 51
3.4.2 Developing Classification System …………………………………………………….. 55
3.5 Phase 2: Interviews of Practitioners …………………………………………………………….. 64
3.5.1 Selection, Recruitment, and Profiles of Participants. …………………………… 65
3.5.2 Elicitation of Practitioners’ Experience ……………………………………………… 71
3.5.3 Interview Analysis ………………………………………………………………………….. 73
CHAPTER 4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES, METHODS, AND COMPETENCIES FOR
PARTICIPATORY HUMANITARIAN ENGINEERING PROJECTS …………………….. 77
4.1 Guiding Principles ……………………………………………………………………………………. 78
4.1.1 Collaborating With on-the-Ground Partners ……………………………………….. 78
4.1.2 Harnessing Local Resources and Expertise ………………………………………… 80
4.1.3 Considering Ethics, and Social Justice ………………………………………………. 82
4.1.4 Building Trusting Relationships ……………………………………………………….. 83
4.1.5 Creating Diverse and Multidisciplinary Teams …………………………………… 84
4.2 Methods to Involve Communities ……………………………………………………………….. 84
4.2.1 Social Science Research Methods …………………………………………………….. 85
4.2.2 Design Tools ………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
4.2.3 Participatory Methods ……………………………………………………………………… 87
4.2.4 Stakeholder Identification Methods …………………………………………………… 89
4.2.5 Evaluation and Decision-Making Tools …………………………………………….. 90
4.2.6 Self-Awareness Tools ……………………………………………………………………… 91

viii

Page
4.2.7 Miscellaneous ………………………………………………………………………………… 92
4.3 Competencies …………………………………………………………………………………………… 93
4.3.1 Mindsets, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Self-Awareness ……………………………….. 93
4.3.2 Ability to Navigate Cross-Cultural Differences ………………………………….. 94
4.3.3 Communication and Listening Skills …………………………………………………. 95
4.4 Chapter Summary …………………………………………………………………………………….. 96
CHAPTER 5. PASSIVE, CONSULTATIVE, AND CO-CONSTRUCTIVE
METHODS…………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… 98
5.1 Dimension 1: Levels of Community Participation ………………………………………. 100
5.2 Dimension 2: Project Phase ……………………………………………………………………… 102
5.2.1 Problem Framing and Planning Methods …………………………………………. 102
5.2.2 Information Gathering Methods ……………………………………………………… 106
5.2.3 Solution Development Methods ……………………………………………………… 112
5.3 Chapter Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 115
CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF USING PARTICIPATORY
METHODS………………. ……………………………………………………………………………….. 119
6.1 Participants’ Familiarity With the Methods ………………………………………………… 121
6.2 Positive Aspects ……………………………………………………………………………………… 126
6.3 Negative Aspects ……………………………………………………………………………………. 133
6.3.1 Practical Challenges ………………………………………………………………………. 134
6.3.2 Communication Challenges ……………………………………………………………. 138
6.3.3 Cultural Challenges ……………………………………………………………………….. 144
6.3.4 Ethical Challenges ………………………………………………………………………… 147
6.4 Chapter Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 148
CHAPTER 7. THE SOCIOTECHNICAL NATURE OF HUMANITARIAN
ENGINEERING… ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 151
7.1 The Nature of Humanitarian Engineering…………………………………………………… 152
7.2 Building Trusted Relationships…………………………………………………………………. 155

Page
7.2.1 The Importance and Benefits of Building Trust with Community
Partners….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 155
7.2.2 Strong Project Partner ……………………………………………………………………. 161
7.2.3 Social Interactions …………………………………………………………………………. 163
7.3 Using an Asset/Strengths-Based Approach ………………………………………………… 166
7.3.1 Local Expertise …………………………………………………………………………….. 169
7.4 Chapter Summary …………………………………………………………………………………… 171
CHAPTER 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ……………………………………….. 174
8.1 Discussion of Findings …………………………………………………………………………….. 176
8.1.1 Discussion of Findings Related to RQ1 ……………………………………………. 176
8.1.2 Discussion of Findings Related to RQ2 ……………………………………………. 186
8.1.3 Integrating Phase 1 and 2 ……………………………………………………………….. 191
8.1.4 Appropriateness of Methods …………………………………………………………… 195
8.2 Broader Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………. 197
8.2.1 Trust and Social Interactions ………………………………………………………….. 197
8.2.2 Asset-Based Community Development ……………………………………………. 199
8.2.3 The Sociotechnical Nature of Humanitarian Engineering Practice ………. 203
8.2.4 Students’ Involvement …………………………………………………………………… 204
8.3 Dissemination Plan and Research-to-Practice Ideas …………………………………….. 208
8.4 Future Research ……………………………………………………………………………………… 210
8.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 212
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 213
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Search Strings for Qualitative Systematized Review………………………….. 233
Appendix B: List of Collected Methods ………………………………………………………………. 237
Appendix C: Possible Participation Framework for Classification of Methods …………. 248
VITA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 255

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
Table 3.1 Project Activities and Outcomes ……………………………………………………….. 41
Table 3.2. Example of Titles of Papers that Were Discarded ………………………………. 48
Table 3.3. Sources Obtained Through the QSR Process …………………………………….. 52
Table 3.4. Sources of Methods Obtained by Snowballing From the QSR Sources…. 54
Table 3.5. Assignment of Methods for Review …………………………………………………. 64
Table 3.6. Key Characteristics of Study Participants. ………………………………………… 69
Table 5.1. Problem Framing and Planning Methods ………………………………………… 103
Table 5.2. Information Gathering Methods …………………………………………………….. 107
Table 5.3. Solution Development Methods …………………………………………………….. 113
Table 6.1. Codes and Short Examples for Each Code ………………………………………. 120
Table 6.1. Number of Transcripts Coded Under the Five Codes for Each Method 122
Table 7.1. Code and Associated Examples ……………………………………………………… 152
Appendix Table
Table A.1. Search Strings, Their ID Numbers, and Number of Papers Found ……… 233
Table A2. Number of Paper Discarded and Kept at Each Selection Step ……………. 235
Table B.1: Levels of Communities’ Participation in Humanitarian Engineering Projects
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 254

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
Figure 2.1. Example of Evaluation of Participation in a Project. …………………………. 32
Figure 3.1. Flowchart of Process to Develop the Classification System ……………….. 56
Figure 3.3. Example of Application of Color-Coding on an IDEO Method ………….. 60
Figure 3.2. Legend for Color-Coding Scheme …………………………………………………… 60
Figure 5.1. Two-Dimensional Use-Inspired Framework to Classify Methods ……… 100
Figure 5.2. Levels of Community Participation……………………………………………….. 101
Figure 8.1. Template of Information Sheet ……………………………………………………… 192
Figure 8.2. Info Sheet for Wealth Ranking ……………………………………………………… 193
Figure 8.3. Info Sheet for Participatory Mapping …………………………………………….. 194

xii

ABSTRACT
Mazzurco, Andrea, Ph.D., Purdue University, August 2016. Methods to Facilitate
Community Participation in Humanitarian Engineering Projects: Laying the Foundation
for a Learning Platform. Major Professor: Brent K. Jesiek.

Humanitarian engineering (HE) is a new interdisciplinary field that is rapidly emerging
worldwide. Many not-for-profit organizations such as Engineers Without Borders,
Practical Action, and International Development Enterprise have been flourishing with
the goal of providing technological solutions to those who need them the most. In
engineering programs across the U.S., HE, service-learning, community engagement, and
similar programs are gaining popularity because they offer an efficient way to meet
ABET accreditation criteria, while also teaching valuable technical and professional
skills to engineering students. However, the cultural, social, and political differences
among communities and engineers often add degrees of difficulty that cannot be properly
addressed using typical engineering problem solving approaches. Consequently,
engineers must utilize problem framing and solving methods that meet the twofold
requirements of involving community members at each stage of a project and integrating
communities’ needs, desires, assets, cultures, social norms, and politics in the proposed
solutions. Historically, engineers have borrowed methods from other disciplines,

xiii

including design and anthropology, as the HE field still lacks a well-established and
coherent repertoire of field-tested methods that are readily accessible by less-experienced
humanitarian engineers.
To address these gaps, this dissertation utilizes a Scholarship of Integration
approach to: (1) collect and classify methods that have been used in (or proposed for)
humanitarian engineering projects, and (2) investigate the conditions (e.g., philosophical
commitments, culture of the community, engineers’ skills, and others) under which the
use of specific methods is appropriate and community participation is best facilitated. In
the first phase of this research, I used a systematized qualitative review to gather 64
methods from relevant engineering and related fields publications. Then I iteratively
analyzed and compared the methods to generate a use-inspired framework classifying the
64 methods based on two main dimensions: the level of community participation and the
purpose of the methods. In the second phase, I interviewed 14 practitioners who have
participated in several humanitarian engineering projects. The thematic analysis of the
practitioners’ personal experiences revealed benefits and challenges associated with the
methods, as well as broader emergent themes such as the importance of building trusted
relationships with project partners and taking an asset-based rather than a needs-based
approach to design.
This dissertation contributes to research engineering thinking and knowing in the
context of engineering and community engagement by providing a framework that can
guide both engineering students and professional in designing culturally sustainable
solutions with underserved communities locally and internationally.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Research Questions
Many scholars have criticized engineers’ involvement with warfare and corporations
(Blue, Levine, and Nieusma, 2013; Riley, 2008) and advocate for engineers to work
toward the improvement of marginalized communities (Blue et al., 2013; Lucena, 2013b;
Riley, 2008). Additionally, humanitarian engineering (HE), global and local service
learning, and similar courses and programs have increasingly appeared in U.S.
engineering schools (Schneider, Lucena, & Leydens, 2009), in part because they allow
institutions to meet accreditation requirements such as the ability to “design a system to
meet desired needs… to function in multidisciplinary teams… to understand professional
and ethical responsibility.. [and] to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a
global context” (ABET, 2004, as quoted by Schneider et al., 2009, p. 44). Furthermore,
scholars have shown that, in addition to meeting ABET criteria, HE courses and
programs offer the opportunity for students to learn many other valuable skills, attitudes,
and forms of knowledge (Huff, Zoltowski, Oakes, 2016; Litchfield and Javernick-Will,
2014; Maloney, Dent, and Karp, 2013).
However, while there is broad consensus on the benefits of local community
engagement programs in engineering schools, scholars express contrasting views
regarding the placements of students in communities abroad (Vandersteen, Baillie, &

Hall, 2009). For instance, Riley (2007) criticized courses and programs with an abroad
component, because she argues that international humanitarian projects can too easily
become a form of colonialism. Likewise, Eprechet (2004) fears that “work-study
programs contribute to the very kinds of underdevelopment and colonial-style North-
South relations that they are intended to critically address” (Eprechet, 2004, as cited by
Vandersteen et al., 2009). Additionally, many humanitarian projects have failed over the
years because they do not properly involve community members and do not take into
account the cultural, social, historical, and political realities of the communities where
projects are undertaken. This creates possible tensions between student and community
needs, which often is resolved in favor of students’ learning, often leaving communities
with inappropriate and unusable solutions (Riley, 2007).
To address this tension and to make sure that communities also benefit from these
programs, many scholars have provided elaborate frameworks and philosophical
commitments to inform the practice of humanitarian engineering projects. For instance,
Amadei et al (2009) published a model for Sustainable Humanitarian Engineering
projects. In this model, 10 guiding principles are provided to ensure the success and
sustainability of humanitarian projects. The principles stress the importance of following
ethical and professional codes and collaborating with a wide range of internal and
external stakeholders. Another model was proposed by Leydens and Lucena (2014),
which integrates notions of social justice. In their framework, they provide six SJ criteria
to guide humanitarian and other types of engineering practice: 1) listening contextually, 2)
identifying structural conditions, 3) acknowledging political agency/mobilizing power, 4)
increasing opportunities and resources, 5) reducing imposed risks and harms, and 6)

enhancing human capabilities (Leydens & Lucena, 2014, p. 6). In addition to these two
frameworks, there are many others that I review later in this dissertation.
Yet while the humanitarian engineering and similar literature is rich with models
and frameworks, there are only few field guides that can help translate the principles into
practice. For instance, Baillie et al. (2010) provide processes to assess needs and
feasibility of transferring technology into a disadvantaged community. Mihelcic et al.
(2009) developed a field guide for environmental engineers working in developing
countries, which provides a set of methods for interacting with communities and
instructions related to specific technologies. IDEO’s (2014) human-centered design
toolkit is also often cited as a practical guide for humanitarian engineering and similar
projects. Casting a wider net, useful resources can also be found in the international
development literature. Yet, the extant literature is still missing a comprehensive
repertoire of field-tested methods, including how existing methods might be compared,
contrasted, and integrated, making them available and useful to both novices and experts
engaged in humanitarian engineering projects.
To fill this gap and address shortcomings of current humanitarian engineering
projects, this dissertation lays the foundations for a learning platform or a toolkit, which
students, faculty, and professionals involved with HE projects can consult to learn about
appropriate methods that may facilitate community participation while at the same time
achieving many of the tasks required during an HE design project. The research questions
that will allow me to meet the aforementioned three objectives are:
1. What are the key characteristics of specific design methods that have been
used/proposed in the HE and related literature?

a. How do they differ in terms of community participation?
b. How do they differ in terms of their function?
c. In what phase of the design process are the methods being used?
d. What other salient characteristics distinguish one method from another?
2. What are other conditions (e.g., philosophical commitments, culture of the
community, engineers’ skills and mindsets, and others) that are not specific to any
design stage, but may facilitate meaningful community participation?
1.2 My Personal Journey
The challenges related to humanitarian engineering projects and the inevitable conflict
between students’ and communities’ needs have led many scholars to strongly criticize
and oppose humanitarian engineering project. Those against international placements
tend to favor engagement in one’s own community, as clearly expressed in Illich’s (a
Catholic priest and theologian with experience in Latin America) talk to participants of
the 1968 Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects (CIASP) in Cuernavaca, Mexico:
If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at
home. Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing,
why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you
speak. And you will know when you fail. If you insist on working with the
poor, if this is your vocation, then at least work among the poor who can
tell you to go to hell. It is incredibly unfair for you to impose yourselves
on a village where you are so linguistically deaf and dumb that you don’t
even understand what you are doing, or what people think of you. And it is

profoundly damaging to yourselves when you define something that you
want to do as ‘good,’ a ‘sacrifice’ and ‘help’”. (Illich, 1968, italics added).
A similar conclusion, although less accusatory, can be found in VanderSteen’s (2008)
concluding words of his doctoral dissertation titled Humanitarian Engineering in the
Engineering Curriculum:
Initially, I was excited about this project because of the opportunities to
design appropriate technologies for needy international communities.
While this excitement does still exist, I am much more leery; during the
process I learned a lot about technology in society, the need to challenge
structures, the need to work in one’s own community, and the dangers of
international placements (VanderSteen, 2008, p. 288, italics added).
The above commentaries and the numerous failed projects (Mazzurco and Jesiek,
2014) make international humanitarian engineering (HE) a controversial subject. The
history of engineers involved in humanitarian work show that to ‘deliver progress’ (as
stated by Roberto de Marca (2014), IEEE president, at the 2014 Global Humanitarian
Technology Conference) to ‘underdeveloped’ communities might not be the best idea
after all, and that we should oppose anybody who wants to participate in such projects.
We should work in our own communities or at least with people that speak the same
language (Illich, 1968). Given these negative factors related to HE, it would seem crazy
to do a dissertation on HE. So why am I focusing my dissertation on HE? And most
importantly, why am I not already back in Italy designing for my own people?
While I strongly oppose the idea of ‘deliver progress’ as expressed by the IEEE
president, I find many reasons to consider HE a worthy field of practice. One of those

reasons stems from my own difficulty in aligning with the ‘design in your own
community’ idea. The advocates of this idea seem to use a very narrow definition of
one’s own community, implying that one’s own community should be determined by
one’s native language and passport, or more specifically by where one lives. If we accept
this definition of community, we then have to accept ‘linguistic determinism’, which
states that the language we speak and the culture in which we grew up determine who we
are (see explanation in Lustig and Koester, 1996). However, this theory excludes the
concept of agency and the understanding that we have the power to change and transform
who we are (Freire, 1970). While there is no doubt that the culture we grew up in and the
language we speak influences and sometimes dominates how we understand the world
and creates conflicts when encountering people from other places, we have the potential
to learn to be in harmony with communities in which we are not native, to learn from
each other, and to positively influence each other. Furthermore, in today’s globalized
society, hardly anybody clearly fits in one specific community and we are usually part of
many communities, although we might still feel more at ease in our own native country
or city or neighborhood than in other places. For instance, this is especially my case.
I was born in Milan, northern Italy, but my father is from the northeast and my
mother is from Sicily. Although I was mostly influenced by the northern culture, I also
acquired some aspects of the Southern Italian culture. This makes me belong partially to
both Northern and Southern Italian communities, which means I do not really belong to
either of them. Additionally, I come from a middle-class family and, thanks to my parents,
I have never experienced economic disadvantages or a lack of support, which means as a
privileged individual I do not belong to the lower socio-economic classes in Italy.

Furthermore, I have already spent such a considerable amount of time in the USA (six
years total) that I have the same tax-return rate of any US citizen earing my same salary.
While at the beginning it was hard to adapt to the US lifestyle and there are still many
things that I do not like and I refuse to accept, I came to appreciate many aspects of US
culture and to incorporate many aspects of it in my own lifestyle.
This experience changed me so much that when I hang out with friends from my
youth, I feel like an outsider. They are not ‘my community’ anymore. To complicate
things even more, my wife is Brazilian. In the almost three years we have been dating, I
learned much about Brazilian culture and incorporated it in my own lifestyle. Now I can
say I am a hybrid Italian-United Statesman-Brazilian, half engineer, half social scientist,
middle-class-born, Christian-raised atheist/Buddhist-by-choice individual. Moreover, as I
became the hybrid that I am now, I know that I can learn to be in harmony with poor or
disadvantaged communities. Thus, I focus my dissertation on ways to improve
engineering practice for the advancement of the wellbeing of disadvantaged communities,
even if they are not my own community.
However, believing that anybody can easily become part of any community and
work for their well-being is naïve. The process that brought me to become the ‘hybrid’
that I am now and to belong to so many different communities was long and not easy. I
had to learn many new things, to challenge my beliefs, and I made many mistakes. This is
no different from doing HE projects. However, if humanitarian engineers fail to learn and
continue making the same mistakes (see Mazzurco & Jesiek, 2014), the consequences can
be catastrophic and humanitarian workers will cause more harm than good (see for
instance Dambisa Moyo, 2009, Dead Aid). If humanitarian engineers want to make

developing countries their own community and to produce sustainable solutions, they
have to learn to “shut up and listen” (Sirolli, 2012). They must become ‘searchers’ who
do not “know the answers in advance” (Easterly, 2006). This searcher mindset is in fact
what distinguishes expert designers from novices (Crismond and Adams, 2012).
Once I understood the importance of learning and listening through my own
experiences and the aforementioned scholarly work, I aligned myself with Vandersteen,
Baillie, and Hall’s (2009) interviewees, who believed that international HE “can work
with the right attitude and dialogue” (p. 35). I thus began a quest to find what at that time
I believed was the right way of learning, framing, and solving problems in HE projects. I
began from Paulo Freire (1970)’s work which guided me to participatory action research
and Chambers’ (1994) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). I then learned about human-
centered design (HCD) from IDEO’s toolkit, from Zoltowski, Oakes, and Cardella’s
(2010) work, and by being a co-advisor for EPICS for one semester. I also learned how
the well-being framework (see Gouch and McGregor, 2007) could be applied to
engineering design thanks to Nelson (2012). I read about the Appropriate Technology
movement initiated by Shumacher’s influential book Small is Beautiful (1973). I
discovered the value-sensitive design approach that has been used in African healthcare
(Walton & DeRenzi, 2009). I dreamed (and still dream) to use photovoice (Wang and
Burris, 1999) as an instrument to assess needs and as a vehicle for advocacy and self-
determination. I scrutinized Amadei, Sandekian, and Thomas’s (2009) model for
sustainable HE that is very much aligned with the appropriate technology movement. I
discovered the importance of taking an asset-based approach thanks to Mathie and
Cunningham (2001), who also taught me the importance of recognizing that users possess

the right “to participate, decide, and even reject [an HE] project or intervention” (Lucena,
2013 p. 810). I took a class on Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to learn what it means to
evaluate the environmental sustainability of a product. More recently, I became
passionate about the engineering for social justice approach suggested by Leydens and
Lucena (2014). Finally, once I read all of the aforementioned resources, I began
comparing them, and I found that they had one thing in common; they all appeared to be
a possible right way to solve the humanitarian challenge. My quest for the right way
ended nowhere (or in too many places) and I felt lost until I read Hussain (2010).
Sofia Hussain’s (2010) work is probably the most transparent report of an HE or
similar project that I have read during my quest for the right way. In her 2010 work, she
does not focus only on her successes, but she is transparent on all the challenges and the
things that she had to change to succeed. The goal of her project was to develop leg
prostheses by including marginalized children in every single step and every single
decision of her project. However, the local conditions did not allow her to include
children as she wished, and many times she had to adapt. She even leveraged the local
hierarchical social structure that goes against the principles of participatory design. If
instead of adapting she had been strictly loyal to the participatory design principles, she
would have done much more harm than good.
In fact, this is exactly what many international aid workers had failed to do in the
past, thus inspiring publication of the edited book Participation: The New Tyranny
(Cooke and Kothatari, 2001). The authors of this book strongly criticize Chambers’ (1994)
Participatory Rural Appraisal, especially pointing out that participatory methods “silence
or exclude others that have advantages participatory methods cannot provide” (Lucena,

2013, p. 809) and override local functioning dynamics. This problem is labeled as the
Tyranny of the method (Cooke and Kothatari, 2001; Lucena, 2013). However, what the
critiques of Chamber’s work failed to realize is that if PRA risks to be tyrannical by
imposing itself as the right and only way, then any other approach can be potentially a
tyranny if it is deemed to be the right and only way. Engineering for social justice, HCD,
asset-based, appropriate technology, and all the others are blueprints that need judicious
responsiveness to specific conditions to be successful. As observed by Hussain, Sanders,
and Streinert (2012) in relation to participatory design:
In South Africa there is a strong tradition for community participation and
collective decision making in communities, thus, it was fairly easy for
researchers to gather participants from different levels of the community
and together form a common vision for the project. In India, on the other
hand, a bottom-up approach did not work […] due to the hierarchical
structure of the country with strong government involvement in
community issues, a tradition that can be traced back to British colonial
rule (p. 93).
Thus, humanitarian engineers and proposers of HE blueprints should be able to
“challenge, but not reject systematically, the governing mentalities that shape what is
‘good’, ‘right’, and ‘true’” (Nieusma, 2004, p.23) so that the appropriate methods could
be used (or adapted) for the appropriate situation.
1.3 Structure of Dissertation
The first chapter of this dissertation presented the research problem for this project,
including a discussion of my personal journey that led me to formulate and answer the

proposed research questions. In the introduction, I take the reader into a journey through
my struggles and my resolutions. I do this to increase the trustworthiness of my research
and demonstrate the sincerity of my intentions (Tracy, 2010).
The second chapter is my literature review. The goal of this chapter is to show
readers why my study is necessary and important. I will begin by discussing multiple
definitions of HE. After providing a brief overview of the history of engineers’
involvement in humanitarian projects, as well as the status of HE in US education, I will
discuss what considerations are important in HE. The rest of the literature review will
focus on better understanding what counts as participation in HE projects. I focus
especially on participation because it has been deemed to be essential for the success of
HE projects, but potentially also a form of tyranny when misused or imposed.
Participation is also one of the a priori dimensions that I used to classify the methods.
The third chapter presents both the methodological framework for my dissertation
and the specific research methods I used. Specifically, my research approach was divided
in two sequential but integrated phases. In the first phase, I performed a Qualitative
Systematized Review of literature to identify methods which I then classified using a
process of taxonomy development. For the second phase, I interviewed humanitarian
engineering practitioners and analyzed interview transcripts using thematic analysis.
Throughout the chapter, I discuss how I ensured that my research could be considered
trustworthy. The appendixes contain supporting material for the methods chapter.
Appendix A contains search strings used for the Qualitative Systematized Review
described in section 3.3. Appendix B contains a list of all the methods that I collected
from the literature review. Appendix C presents a participation framework that I created

based on the literature reviewed in section 2.6., and that I initially intended to use for
classifying the methods, but then did not use it.
Chapters four to seven present the findings from the two research phases. Chapter
4, titled “Principles, Methods, and Competencies,” reports the results of analyzing 48
papers that I collected through the Qualitative Systematized Review. Chapter 5 presents
the use-inspired framework that classify methods along two dimensions: levels of
community participation and purpose of the methods. Chapter 6 reports comments and
observations from the practitioners I interviewed. Finally, chapter 7 reports emergent
themes from the analysis of practitioner interviews that elucidate the real nature of HE
practice and position building trust as a key factor for successful projects.
Chapter 8 is the last discussion chapter. In this chapter, I first discuss how the
findings reported in chapter 4 to 7 answer the research questions and how they relate and
add to the broader literature on HE practice. Second, I discuss some broader themes that
were not directly related to the research questions, but that emerged especially from
chapter 4 and 7. While discussing findings, I also present some recommendations. Finally,
I conclude by discussing a dissemination plan, ideas for translating my findings into
teaching practice, and areas for future research.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview
In this chapter, I review relevant literature related to HE to underscore the need for and
the importance of answering my research questions. In the first section (2.2), I discuss
multiple definitions of HE. Then, in section 2.3, I provide a brief overview of the history
of engineers’ involvement in humanitarian projects. In section 2.4, I describe the status of
HE in today’s US education. In section 2.5, I discuss what considerations are important in
HE. In section 2.6, I will focus on understanding what participation is, including the link
between degrees of participation and PFSMs. Finally, in section 2.7, I conclude by
discussing the challenges of participation and the importance of choosing the appropriate
PFSMs based on many factors, including the socio-cultural context of an HE project.
2.2 What is Humanitarian Engineering?
HE has often been conceived as engineering with the goal of meeting humanitarian goals.
Engineering has been often defined as “the application of mathematics and science in
service to humanity and as a bridge that connects the sciences to the humanities” (Grasso,
Callahan, & Doucett, 2004, p. 413), and the goal of humanitarianism is to promote
present and future wellbeing for the direct benefit of underserved populations (Mitcham

and Munoz, 2009). Given those definitions, HE can be defined variously as:
“the application of engineering skills specifically for meeting the basic
needs of all people, while at the same time promoting human (societal and
cultural) development” (VanderSteen, J., 2008, p. 8).
“the artful drawing on science to direct the resources of nature with active
compassion to meet the basic needs of all – especially the powerless, poor,
or otherwise marginalized” (Mitcham and Munoz, 2010, p. 27).
However, others have moved away from the classical engineering definition and
recognized the important role of design and research by putting them at the core of the
HE definition:
“Humanitarian engineering is design under constraints to directly improve
the wellbeing of underserved populations” (Schneider, Leydens, and
Lucena, 2008, p.312)
“‘Research and design under constraints to directly improve the wellbeing
of marginalized communities” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2011).
The idea of designing under constrains is well aligned with many general definitions of
engineering. For instance, in the National Academy of Engineering’s Engineer of 2020,
the following definition is proposed for engineering:
“engineering is about design under constraint. The engineer designs
devices, components, subsystems, and systems and, to create a successful
design, in the sense that it leads directly or indirectly to an improvement in
our quality of life, must work within the constraints provided by technical,

economic, business, political, social, and ethical issues” (National
Academy of Engineering, 2004, p. 7).
EWB-Spain recognizes humanitarian technology (and technology in general) “to be
linked to the cultural, social, economic, political, and environmental context in which it is
developed” (Canavate & Casaus, 2010, p. 16), while EWB-France proposes the ‘citizen
engineer’, who has to be “aware of and concerned with the ethical implications of
engineering practice” (Paye, 2010, p.25). Thus, HE is a very complex interdisciplinary
field, which combines knowledge and methods of a variety of disciplines, including
engineering, natural and social sciences, humanities, and design.
2.3 Brief History of Engineers’ Involvement in Humanitarianism
The historical review that follows does not aspire to be a thorough account of engineers’
involvement in humanitarian projects. Rather, the purpose of this section is to provide
some historical context to my study. The historical review is based on Lucena and
Schneider’s (2008) work. While in the first two paragraphs, I summarized what said by
Lucena and Schneider (2008), in the last two paragraphs, I expanded Lucena and
Schneider’s (2008) history with new sources that were published after their work. In
addition to Lucena and Schneider’s (2008), more systematic and thorough historical
reviews can be found in Jesiek and Beddoes (2010), Lucena, Schneider, and Leydens
(2010), Mitcham and Munoz (2010), Wisnioski (2012), and in Vandersteen’s (2008)
doctoral dissertation. In section 2.3., I will provide an overview of today’s HE status in
US engineering education.
The involvement of engineers in humanitarian work began after WWII and, until
the end of the 1960s, it was driven by the US and USSR, with the goal of modernizing

the independent countries emerging in Asia and Africa. On one hand, the US was hoping
that these new countries would become new allies in a ‘modern’ stage of consumer
capitalism. On the other hand, the USSR was searching for allies to expand industrialized
socialism. The two superpowers believed that their goals could be achieved with large-
scale development projects. For instance, while the US engineers were highly involved in
expanding the Green Revolution in South East Asia, the USSR lead the construction of
the Aswan High Dam in Egypt. Such mega development projects did not include any
consideration for the context in which they were implemented and followed the political
and economic colonializing agenda of the involved superpowers. However, in the midst
of these projects, one group of engineers in USA was attempting to develop technologies
that were sensitive of the local context. Those were the engineers of the Volunteers In
Technical Assistant (VITA), who did not believe in delivering mega aid packages, but
rather thought that “the key to technology transfer was in the diffusion of technical
information to help villagers develop technical expertise” (p. 249). While few other
examples of this kind existed, the thinking driving VITA engineers can be seen as an
extraordinary exception until the 1970s.
In the USA, the 1970s were characterized by “the questioning of the military-
industrial complex, the impact of industrial technologies on the environment, and the use
of military technology in the Vietnam War” (p. 250) and the questioning of the benefits
of technology in general. At the international level, the negative outcomes on the
ecosystem and local economies of the Green Revolution and the failure of many large-
scale projects brought to light the need to conceive technologies that were appropriate to
the local context. The wave of new thinking that aligned with the work of VITA

engineers was driven by Shumacher’s influential book Small is Beautiful (1973). In this
book, Shumacher introduces the concepts that influenced the Appropriate Technology
approach, for which good technological solutions had to be cheap, low-tech, and mindful
of societal and environmental impacts. However, the rise of neoliberal economics, the
decline of the Cold War, and President Reagan’s elimination of appropriate technology
programs, stopped the exemplary development efforts that characterized the ‘70s (Lucena
and Schneider, 2008). Because of these events, the 1980s are today known as the lost
decade of development.
After the 1980s hiatus, the 1990s were characterized by a new enthusiasm toward
development. On one hand, the international development field saw the rise of new
thinking, on the other, more Engineers Without Borders (EWB) organizations were being
established. International development workers moved beyond the concept of
appropriateness to include community participation, empowerment, and social and
environmental sustainability. The goal was not only to understand the context, but to
“enable local people to share, enhance, and analyze their knowledge of life conditions, to
plan and to act” (Chambers, 1994, p. 1437). The use of Participatory Action Researches
methods, such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 1994), included a
commitment to reject a deficit-model of communities, and to see communities as partners
rather than receivers and consumers of aid. Consequently, development workers began to
adopt a framework that considered communities as being rich of human, natural, financial,
and social assets that allowed them to “assemble their strengths into new combinations,
new structures of opportunity, new sources of income and control, and new possibilities
for production” (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993, p. 6., as quoted by Mathie and

Cunnings, 2003, p.476). As a result, it became clear that sustainable development could
not be achieved without community empowerment, which in turns requires communities’
full participation, leveraging communities’ existing assets, and recognizing that
communities have the rights to “participate, decide, and even reject a SD [Sustainable
Development] project or intervention” (Lucena, 2013, p. 810).
While international development workers were making the above conclusions,
non-profit organizations such as EWBs were being established with the aim of providing
technological assistance to disadvantaged communities around the world. The first EWB
was born in France from the work at the prestigious ‘Ecole Nationale Des Ponts and
Chaussées;’ inspired by the already well-known Medicins Sans Frontiers (Doctor
Without Borders); the organization was established in 1992 under the name Ingenieurs
Sans Frontieres (Paye, 2010). Spanish students who studied in France through the
Erasmus Programme got involved in EWB-France projects (Canavate and Casasus, 2010).
When they returned to Spain, they created and founded Ingenieria Sin Fronteras (EWB-
Spain) in 1992-1994, modeled after EWB-France (Canavate and Casasus, 2010). During
the same time, Ingenieurs Zonder Grenzen was established on the Flemmish side of
Belgium, while Ingénieurs Assistance Internationale- Ingenieurs Sans Frontieres was
started on 1997 on the French side of Belgium (Meganck, 2010). Then, it was the turn of
Canada in 2000 (Lucena and Schneider, 2008) and USA in 2001 (Amadei, Sandekian,
and Thomas, 2009). In 2003, EWB-International was created as a network that connects
41 national member organizations (Lucena and Schneider, 2008) and many others have
been established since. However, in contrast with the international development context,
engineers appear to be still in the early phases of ‘appropriateness’ that characterized the

1970s, although some discussion about sustainability and community participation have
gained attention (Schneider et al, 2009).
2.4 Humanitarian Engineering in US Engineering Education
In the USA, in addition to the rapid growth of EWB chapters (see Amedei, Sandekian,
and Thomas, 2009 for specific figures), engineering colleges have been institutionalizing
HE, service-learning, and similar programs and courses in their curriculum. HE and
others especially gained momentum after ABET EC 2000 because they allow institutions
to meet requirements such as the ability to “design a system to meet desired needs… to
function in multidisciplinary teams… to understand professional and ethical
responsibility… [and] to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global
context” (ABET, 2004, as quoted by Schneider et al., 2009, p. 44). Scholars have, in fact,
shown that, in addition to meeting ABET criteria, HE courses and programs offer the
opportunity for students to learn many valuable skills, attitudes, and forms of knowledge
(Huff, Zoltowski, Oakes, 2016; Litchfield & Javernick-Will, 2014; Maloney, Dent, &
Karp, 2013; Pierrakos et al., 2013).
In the pages that follow, I list some HE and similar courses or programs in the
USA. The faculties, students, and administrators of these programs are the direct
audience of this dissertation. The following list of programs and organizations is a
combination of lists reported by a variety of sources (e.g., Amedei et al., 2009; Mitcham
and Munoz, 2010; Parkinson, 2007):
 Technology Assist by Students (TABS), a student led organization founded in 2000 at
Stanford University.

 Engineering World Health (EWH), student founded in 2001 at University of
Memphis under the guidance of professors Bob Malkin and Mohammad Kiani and
currently based at Duke University, with the goal to “inspire, educate, and empower
the biomedical engineering community to improve health care delivery in the
developing world.” (Engineering World Health, 2004)
 Engineers for a Sustainable World (EWB) is an organization that is “comprised of
students, university faculty, and professionals who are dedicated to building a more
sustainable world for current and future generations.” (Engineers for a Sustainable
World, 2014)
 Dartmouth Humanitarian Engineering (DHE) is a student-run organization
established in 2004 at Dartmouth University with the goal as part of EWB. Their
mission is to “encourage development, improve health and reduce environmental
impact through sustainable, affordable, socially-conscious solutions for communities
in need” (DHE, 2012).
 Village Empowerment Program at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell that began
in 1997 thanks the request of students to do international service work and has the
goal of developing “systems that in general meet the health care, education,
communication, energy, water, food production, and housing needs of villages in a
sustainable way” (Duffy, 2008, p. 2). Out of this program, UMass-Lowell also
created the Service-Learning Integrated throughout the College of Engineering
(SLICE) that has the goal to “to integrate service-learning into a broad array of
courses so that students will be exposed to service-learning in at least one course

every semester in the core curriculum in every program in the entire college of
engineering” (UMass-Lowell, 2014).
 The Engineering in Technical and Humanitarian Opportunities of Service (ETHOS)
at University of Dayton that was created in 2001 by a collaboration between students
at University of Dayton and the Aprovecho Research Center in Oregon. This program
“is rooted in the belief that engineers are more capable to serve our world when they
experience opportunities that increase their understanding of technology’s global
linkage with values, culture, society, politics and economics” (ETHOS, 2014).
 Engineering Project in Community Service (EPICS) created in 1995 at Purdue
University in which “teams of undergraduates are designing, building, and deploying
real systems to solve engineering-based problems for local community service and
education organizations.” (EPICS, 2014).
 The Mortenson Center in Engineering for Developing Communities (MCEDC) stared
in 2003 at the University of Colorado-Boulder has the goal to “Creating a world
where all people can enjoy a safe, secure, healthy, productive, and sustainable life for
all peoples should be a priority for the engineering profession” (Mortenson Center,
2014)
 Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) since 2006 at
Pennsylvania State University that aims at developing solutions “with the four
hallmarks of sustainability – technologically appropriate, environmentally benign,
socially acceptable and economically sustainable” (The Pennsylvania State University,
2011).

 Colorado School of Mines was the first Humanitarian Engineering program in the
USA to offer a minor in HE, initiated in 2003, with the goal to “teach students how
engineering can contribute to co-creating just and sustainable solutions for
communities” (Colorado School of Mines, 2014).
 The Global Perspectives Program (GPP) at Worchester Polytechnic Institute offers
students the opportunity to “collaborate with faculty advisors and sponsor
organizations to identify and solve pressing problems impacting communities around
the world” (Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2014).
 California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo started a program called
SUSTAIN SLO that is described as “a community of faculty, students, and
organizations in San Luis Obispo County who are involved in a research project to
explore alternative ways of learning” to be professional engineers (California
Polytechnic State University, 2012).
 The Humanitarian Engineering Center at Ohio State University offers a minor in HE
for undergraduates and other opportunities for graduate students as well (Bixler et al,
2014).
 Oregon State University offer a minor in HE for undergraduates and a Peace Corps
Master for civil, mechanical, biological and ecological, water resources, and
environmental engineering graduates (Oregon State University, 2016).
 Michigan Tech’s Peace Corps Master’s International and Engineering
http://www.mtu.edu/d80/programs/peace-corps-masters-intl/
 Univ. of South Florida’s Peace Corps Master’s International, degree in Civil and
Environmental Engineering. http://www.usf.edu/world/centers/peace-corps.aspx

All the aforementioned programs have the commonality to teach students an array of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes by partnering them with disadvantaged communities
locally and/or internationally and with the second goal to help communities improving
their quality of life. Riley (2007) finds the double goal of students’ education and
community development very problematic and argues that these programs tend to foster a
neocolonialist mindset where only students really benefit. Likewise, Eprechet (2004)
fears that “work-study programs contribute to the very kinds of underdevelopment and
colonial-style North-South relations that they are intended to critically address” (Eprechet,
2004, as cited by Vandersteen, 2009). While I understand Riley’s and Eprechet’s
concerns with this kind of programs, rather than antagonize the faculties, students, and
administrator of HE and similar programs, I hope this dissertation can support them to
continuing to do some good in the world in ways that do not replicate colonialism.
2.5 Important Considerations in HE
Gathering information plays a crucial role in design (Crismond and Adams, 2012)
because it can help better frame a problem and formulate proper solutions. One of the
key aspects that distinguishes an expert designer from a beginner is that experts build
knowledge through thorough research and use both “domain-specific knowledge and
situation-relevant strategies to design effectively” (Crismond and Adams, 2012, p. 752).
A series of studies done by Bursic and Atman (1997), Atman et al. (1999), and Atman et
al. (2007) found that, when given the same task, more experienced designers tend to
spend more time gathering information than less experienced designers. As HE is a
design process, it is clear that effective humanitarian engineers as well must spend
considerable time collecting information, so that they can “adequately define the problem,

generate appropriate alternative solutions, and analyze, evaluate, and select the best
solution” (Bursic and Atman, 1997, p. 60).
However, what kind of information do engineers and humanitarian engineers tend
to gather to formulate proper solutions? Trying to answer a similar question, Leydens and
Lucena (2009a) found that faculties in HE programs and courses tend to value
engineering science more than design and do not usually recognize the central role that
“health, community development, language, cultural, social, and political” considerations
(p. 159) play in HE. The phenomenon of dismissing social and contextual considerations
in favor of a narrow focus on technical factors is a very common trend in engineering.
When Pawley (2009) asked engineering faculties to define engineering, she found three
“universalized narratives”, including the belief that engineering is “applied science and
math”. This is what Oldenziel (2000) calls the “cultural authority of math and science” (p.
20, as cited by Hess and Strobel, p, 57). In addition to science and math, engineers
recognize the need to gather “specific and quantifiable requirements such as cost, weight,
technical specs, desirable functions, and timeline” (Lucena et al., 2010, p. 124). Yet,
while such considerations are important for the functionality of a device or a system,
humanitarian engineers must also understand that “information such as cost, weight,
technical specs, desirable functions, and timeline acquires meaning only when the context
of the person(s) making the requirements (their history, political agendas, desires, forms
of knowledge, etc.) is fully understood” (Lucena et al. 2010, p. 125).
In a previous publication, colleagues and I developed a framework grounded both
in the literature and empirical data to classify considerations related to solve a HE
challenge (Mazzurco, Huff, and Jesiek, 2014). The framework classifies the

considerations in four categories—technical, constraints to technical, stakeholders, and
contextual—based on the focus of the consideration. A common trend that we saw in the
data of our study, but that we did not published explicitly, was a great emphasis of
considerations focused on stakeholders’ involvement. This is not surprising, as many
scholars have argued that stakeholders’ participation is a key, if not the most important
factor, in solving HE challenges (Lucena et al., 2010; Munoz and Mitcham, 2010).
However, the HE literature lacks of a proper framework to describe the different degrees
of community participation and to classify problem framing and problem solving
methods (PFSMs) based on community participation. Filling this gap is indeed the goal
of this dissertation.
In the following sections of this chapter, I will review literature on participation
from other disciplines and suggest possible dimensions of the ‘participation’ construct. In
the methods chapter (Ch. 3), I will explain how I will develop a system to classify PFSMs
used in HE projects based on community participation, and other categories.
2.6 Participation Frameworks
One of the key aspects, if not the most important, for the success of any HE project is
communities’ participation. Mitcham and Munoz (2010) stress that to be sustainable,
projects must be owned by the local people and that ownership can be achieved only
through their participation. Humanitarian engineers should be able to “listen to the
demands of citizens and other stakeholders, and let them have a say in the development
of new technologies and infrastructures” (Schneider et al. 2008, p. 310). Moreover, the
ways engineers see communities influences how they relate to the communities and the
sustainability of the projects. For instance, Lucena (2013a) argues that engineers should

move from seeing community as clients, to see communities as citizens, that is, to
recognize “not only the diversity and complexities of users but also their rights […] to
participate, decide, and even reject a SD project or intervention” (p. 810). Participation
and engineers-community relationships are the backbone of HE and similar projects.
To illustrate the importance of community participation, it is worth to look into a
failure case-study. On his first EWB assignment in Kenya, Mattias was working on
energy efficient stoves that would reduce firewood consumption by about 50%. He had
found out about solar cookers and thought that this solution would be even better because
it would completely eliminate firewood consumption. However, one day while he was
camping, the locals physically threatened him for cooking outside. Consequently, he
realized that open-air cooking is not culturally appropriate in many rural Kenyan
communities. Mattias’s was able to stop pursuing his solar cooking idea after suddenly
realizing that it was not an acceptable technology for rural Kenyans (Goldmann, 2015).
In this case, Mattias was luckier others because his early encounters with the locals led
him to conclude that his idea was doomed to fail. Yet, this case-study is very illustrative
of the key role that community participation play in HE projects.
However, participation is a complex concept. A very important aspect of
conceptualizing participation in a project is to understand who gets to make decisions at
each stage of a design process (Baillie, 2006; Mitcham and Munoz, 2010). Yet,
participation is not only about distribution of decision-making power. It is also about how
information flows between communities and engineers, what weight is given to such
information by decision-makers, and what roles each counterpart plays. Furthermore,
participation is not static during the design process and the degrees to which communities

participate can vary largely depending on the design stage and the goal of the project
itself. Finally, depending on the design stage and the degree of community involvement,
different methods could be used. To better understand the details of the aforementioned
dimensions of participation, I compared and contrasted the participation frameworks
proposed by multiple researchers Arnstein (1969), Biggs (1989), Chambers (2005),
Cohen and Uphoff (1980), Davidson (1998), Druin (2002), Hage et al (2010), Hart
(1992), Hussain (2010), Knaji and Greenwood (2001), Lilja and Ashbly (1999), Pretty
(1995), VeneKlasen and Miller (2001), and White (1996). To these sources I also added
Lucena (2013a) and Zoltowski et al. (2012), whose work, despite not offering a
‘participation ladder,’ inform some aspects of the definition of participation. In the
following paragraphs, I describe the variation of each dimension of participation.
2.6.1 Who Makes Decisions?
All the participation frameworks that I reviewed divide decision-makers in two groups.
For instance, Arnstein (1969) and Davidson (1998) consider the relationship between
power holders and citizens. Similarly, Biggs (1989), Chambers (2005), Knaji and
Greenwood (2001), Lilja and Ashbly (1999), Pretty (1995) consider the relationship
between some outsider entity (e.g., scientists, researchers, agencies) and the local
population (often represented as rural farmers). All the authors consider three scenarios,
two in which one of the counterparts has complete decision-making control and the other
in which decision-making control is shared among the counterparts. However, Davidson
(1998) notes also that even in the case of shared decision-making, there will be
conditions is which one of the counterparts will have a little more power than the other.

Similarly, Zoltowski et al. (2012) show how an empathic relationship between
stakeholders and designers allows stakeholders to influence decisions, even if
stakeholders do not have any formal power.
2.6.2 How Does Information Flow?
The only framework that clearly articulates how information flows is the one proposed by
Hage et al. (2010). In their framework, they represent the direction of information flow
with arrows that connect planners to stakeholders and vice versa. Other authors (e.g.,
Arnstein, 1969; Davidson, 1998) talk about information flow indirectly and some
considerations can be inferred from the way they describe the relationship between the
two counterparts. In general, at the bottom of any participation ladder, there is no
information flowing, or information about decisions is given to the people who are
affected by the decisions only after decisions are made. In some steps on top of the ladder,
decision-makers begin to gather information from their counterparts in order to make
better decisions. At the next stage, there is a two-way flow of information, in which the
counterparts contribute equally to the decision-making. Finally, on the highest rungs of
the participation ladders, farmers, or locals take charge of decision making processes and
control how the information flows.
2.6.3 How Much Weight Does Information Have on Decisions?
Even when information flows, there is variation in the way that information from
communities and other stakeholders is used. For instance, Davidson (1998) distinguished
between ‘limited consultation’ and ‘genuine consultation’ based on how information is
used. In the former, decision-makers may or may not use the information, but, in the
latter, they base decisions on this. Davison’s (1998) ‘genuine consultation’ is similar to a

form of empathic decision-making (Zoltowski et al., 2012) in which designers create
deep and solid bonds with their stakeholders to ensure that decisions made are the best
for their stakeholders. This kind of relationship may involve perspective-taking by part of
the decision-makers.
2.6.4 What Roles Does Each Counterpart Play in Decision-Making?
Depending on the dimensions described so far, people will play different roles in the
decision-making process. Inspired by the work of Mathie and Cunningham (2008),
Lucena (2013a) describes four different ways in which humanitarian engineers could
relate to the communities they are serving:
 Communities-as-clients: “implies a relationship of expert to non-expert where
client brings a problem (and constraints such as budget, timeline, size etc.) to the
table while the engineer holds the expert knowledge to propose solutions to the
problem” (p. 798).
 Communities-as-stakeholders: engineers “recognize the diversity of perspectives
and interests among those with a stake on a technical solution” (p. 801).
 Community-as-users: engineers “acknowledge, understand, and incorporate a
diversity of identities in original designs and acknowledge their agency in
transforming original technologies, and their intended use, into something else” (p.
805).
 Communities-as-citizens: “recognizes not only the diversity and complexities of
users but also their rights […] to participate, decide, and even reject a SD
[sustainable development] project or intervention” (p. 810).

Chambers (2005) instead uses the following metaphors to describe the roles of
outsiders and local people: dictator vs. slave, manipulator vs. puppet, researcher/planner
vs. informant, employer vs. worker, rational economizer vs. collaborator, co-equal
partners, facilitator/catalyst vs. analyst/actor/agent, supporter vs. owner. Zoltowski et al.
(2012) distinguish user-centered design thinking from human-centered/empathic design
thinking based on the way designers see stakeholders. In the former, stakeholders are
seen as data points; in the latter, stakeholders are seen as valuable human beings with
perspectives that can shape the design framing and solution.
2.6.5 How Does Participation Change During the Design Project?
One limitation of the ladder rungs of the participation frameworks described so far is that
they see participation fixed throughout a given project and do not distinguish
participation based on community participation in each design stage. In contrast, Hart
(1990) based his ladder of participation by considering who initiates and who carries on
the project. On the top of the ladder he positions projects initiated by children and in
which children share decisions with adults. A few rungs below, he positions projects that
were instead initiated by adults. Similarly, Druin (2002) classified participation based on
when children are involved in the design process. At the lowest degree of participation,
children are considered testers who “test prototypes of technology that have not been
released to the world by researchers or industry professionals” (Druin, 2002, p. 3). At the
opposite end of her framework, children take the role of design partners, who are
considered to be equal stakeholders in the design of new technologies throughout the
entire experience” (p. 3). Building upon Hart’s (1990) and Druin’s (2002) framework and

her experience developing technology with marginalized children, Hussain (2010)
developed a participation ladder for designing with marginalized children.
Although the ladders suggested by Hart (1990), Druin (2002), and Hussain (2010)
capture how participation might change within a project, their ladders are fixed and
cannot be applied if different dynamics occur. Cohen and Uphoff (1980), instead of using
a ladder, argue that participation should be evaluated case-by-case depending on how
people are involved when a project is initialized, during its implementation, and its
evaluation. Kanji and Greenwood (2001) integrated Cohen and Uphoff’s (1980) ideas by
scoring each project phase using their own participation ladder (figure 2.1). While use
Kanji and Greenwood (2001) consider stages specific to a research project, humanitarian
engineers should develop a participation scoring system to evaluate communities’
participation in each of the typical design stages:
 Project Impetus: decision-makers decide what the objective of the project is and
whom to partner with.
 Problem framing: decision-makers “seek initially to understand the challenge as
best they can, but then delay making design decisions in order to explore and
comprehend the design challenge more fully” (Crismond and Adams, 2012, p.
747).
 Ideation & prototyping: decision-makers brainstorm about and construct possible
solutions to the problem identified at earlier stage.
 Implementation: decision-makers implement the solution and test its
effectiveness.

 Monitoring and maintenance: decision-makers set up a method that ensure that
the project can be sustained once the outsiders left.
The design process is of course non-linear and very recursive, but, generally, these are all
the phases that a designer would go through.

2.6.6 What Methods Could Be Used to Involve Communities?
Depending on who gets to decide, the direction that information flows, and the design
phase, different methods to gather, deliver, or share information, frame a problem, or
develop a solution may be used. When decision-makers want to inform their counterparts
about what decisions were made, they could use public notices, press releases,
discussions papers, exhibitions (Davidson, 1998) and/or presentations (Hage et al., 2010).
When they want to gather information that they may or may not use, they could utilize
Figure 2.1. Example of Evaluation of Participation in a Project.
Adapted from Kanji and Greenwood (2001, p. 54).

surveys, feedback channels, one-on-one interviews, and/or public meetings (Davidson,
1998; Hage et al, 2010). When instead they want to genuinely consult their counterparts,
they may use workshops, bilateral sessions (Hage et al., 2010), focus groups, users or
stakeholder panels (Davison, 1998), and empathize with them by interacting in informal
setting and social situations (Zoltowski et al., 2012). To involve communities as much as
possible in the problem-framing phase of a project, Humanitarian Engineers could use
participatory methods, such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 2005).
Sharing prototyping is often a technique used during the solution development phase by
human-centered designers (Zoltowski et al., 2012).
Other strategies, that were not included in the reviewed participation frameworks
but that could be use to involve communities in framing and solving humanitarian
challenges, are collected in the following resources:
 The Human-Centered Design methods available in IDEO toolkit (IDEO, 2014).
 The Photovoice method that has been widely used in nursing to better understand
health care needs of underprivileged people and used for advocacy purposes
(Wang & Burris, 1997).
 The methods to assess the assets of a community reviewed by Kramer, Seedat,
Lazarus, and Suffla (2012).
 The field guide for environmental engineers working in developing countries
developed by Mihelcic, Fry, Myre, Philips, and Barkdoll (2009).
 The guide for participatory technology development created by Veldhuizen,
Waters-Bayer and de Zeeuw (1997).

 Baillie’s (2010) book that describes processes for assessing needs and feasibility
of transferring a technology into a disadvantaged community.
 The tools in Leydens and Lucena’s (2014) engineering for social justice model.
However, a classification of these methods based on the degrees to which a community
participates has never been proposed.
2.7 Challenges to choose the appropriate degree of participation
Choosing the proper participation rung in one project is a very difficult task and depends
on many factors. For instance, Hussain, Sanders, and Streinert (2012) observe that
different sociocultural conditions might require different participatory approaches:
“In South Africa there is a strong tradition for community participation
and collective decision making in communities, thus, it was fairly easy for
researchers to gather participants from different levels of the community
and together form a common vision for the project. In India, on the other
hand, a bottom-up approach did not work […] due to the hierarchical
structure of the country with strong government involvement in
community issues, a tradition that can be traced back to British colonial
rule.” (p. 93).
Similar to the challenge encountered in India, in a project to build prosthetic legs for
children in Cambodia, Hussain (2010) encountered many barriers to children’s
participation:
1. They visited children’s homes and showed interest in their lives before
users trusted them and accepted to participate.

2. When they wanted to invite users to a workshop, they had to respect the
local hierarchical order by getting support from the older and most
respected prosthetists.
3. Because children are an important part of a family income, they had to
make sure to have the shortest workshops possible with children, so that
they would not loose valuable working hours.
4. They were not able to involve children in the prototyping process because
parents would loose valuable working hours to ensure participation.
5. When they wanted to walk with a child to school to understand better their
daily life, one mother stopped them because she was afraid of the high risk
of child abuse that characterized that specific region.
Hussain (2010) was able to choose the proper participatory approach at each
design stage. However, this is not always the case.
When participatory methods are not used properly, they can be a new form of
tyranny (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Lucena (2013a) explains that “participatory
facilitators often override existing legitimate decision-making processes” (p. 809),
“participatory methods […] might lead to participatory decisions that reinforce the
interests of the already powerful” (p. 809), and that a blind acceptance of participatory
methods could exclude others that might be more appropriate. The consequences of this
misuse of participatory methods can be very harmful. As Chambers (2006) puts it:
“citizen control can mean manipulation, collective action can mean
compliance; and empowerment can mean license to gender discrimination

and petty tyranny. Participation can concentrate power and benefits in the
hands of men and of local elites” (p. 105,107).
Similarly, Ika (2012) warns us about the chance of failure that occurs when outsiders use
standardized approaches no matter the context of development aid interventions.
To avoid such negative outcomes, scholars have suggested many different ideas.
Chamber (2006) suggests that ladders of participation, such those that I just reviewed,
should be accompanied by a ladder of equity that can answer the questions “who benefits
and who pays?” and “who stands to gain or lose?” (Mitcham and Munoz, 2010). Instead,
Lucena, who defended the communities-as-citizens concept (see Lucena, 2013a), admits
that even human-centered design methods (that see communities as stakeholders or users)
might be better off than others might if engineers are collaborating with the right NGOs
(Lucena and Dean, 2014). Additionally, Ika (2012) reminds us that “project management
approaches should be tailored to […] context in general, the type of project, the political
situation, actors in presence, and the type of design, supervision, and implementation
approach” (p. 36). Finally, any social justice process should always be “democratic and
participatory, inclusive and affirming of human agency and human capacities for working
collaboratively to create change” (Adams et al., 2007, p. 3). “The goal of social justice is
full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their
needs” (Adams et al., 2007, p. 1). The challenge is ensuring that one achieves not pseudo-
participation but the kind of full and equal participation aspired to in this definition.
The above examples and considerations suggest that there are no right or wrong
design methods in HE. Thus, designers should be able to “challenge, but not reject
systematically, the governing mentalities that shape what is ‘good’, ‘right’, and ‘true’”

(Nieusma, 2004, p.23) so that the appropriate methods could be used for the appropriate
situation. Understanding what conditions are needed for each method to be successful is
the second objective of this dissertation.

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Objective and Questions
As explained in the introduction (Chapter 1) and literature review (Chapter 2), the HE
education literature still lacks a comprehensive repertoire of principles, methods, and
mindsets that can be readily accessed by engineering students, advisers, and mentors to
inform their HE projects. Thus, the long-term goal of my research related to HE is to
create an online and highly interactive platform that HE practitioners and/or students
could use to guide their projects. The platform would also allow users to add their
narratives of lived experiences using specific techniques and/or adding new methods that
are missing from the toolkit. These stories could be used as a) instructional resources that
faculty could use to better prepare their students for HE projects, and b) research data to
constantly advance the body of knowledge and know-how of HE. However, before being
able to build the online platform much research needs to be done to 1) collect the content
of the toolkit (e.g., methods, strategies, principles, or other factors), 2) create a proper
classification of the collected methods, and 3) collect an initial set of lived experiences
from practitioners. This dissertation aims at achieving these first three objectives.

It is also important to reiterate that any method, strategy, or principle in the
platform or toolkit needs to be used not as “the one right way” or as cookbook
instructions. Instead, it should used judiciously, flexibly, and adaptively in light of the
unique sociotechnical circumstances and exigencies created by each HE project.
The research questions that will allow me to meet the aforementioned three
objectives are:
1. What are the key characteristics of specific design methods that have been
used/proposed in the HE and related literature?
a. How do they differ in terms of community participation?
b. How do they differ in terms of their function?
c. In what phase of the design process are the methods being used?
d. What other salient characteristics distinguish one method from another?
2. What are other conditions (e.g., philosophical commitments, culture of the
community, engineers’ skills and mindsets, and others) that are not specific to any
design stage, but may facilitate meaningful community participation?
3.2 Research Design Overview
To address this dissertation’s research goals and answer the related RQs, I grounded my
research in the Scholarship of Integration (SoI). Boyer (1990) explains that a SoI is
“serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together and bring new insight to
bear on original research” (Boyer, 1990, p. 19) and that is “interdisciplinary, interpretive,
integrative” (Boyer, 1990, p. 21). Consequently, in my research I integrate knowledge
and methods from various disciplines through qualitative interpretation. Additionally, SoI
is use-inspired, that is, it moves “beyond syntheses towards the creation of use-inspired

frameworks” (Crismond & Adams, 2012, p. 742). Thus, given my use-inspired goal to
create a toolkit that integrates knowledge and methods from multiple disciplines, SoI is
the appropriate methodological foundation for this research study.
This study is comprised of two sequential but integrated phases. Each phase has
its own data collection and data analysis approach, but both phases provide results that
help answer both RQs and meet the objective of my dissertation. The goal of the first
phase was to collect and classify methods that may facilitate community participation
across the entire project cycle. I divided the first phase in two sequential sub-phases, i.e.,
Phase 1a and 1b. In phase 1a, I conducted a qualitative systematized review (QSR) that
led me to collect 48 journal papers. The process of collecting and analyzing these papers
is reported in section 3.3., while the results of analyzing and synthesizing the 48 journal
papers is presented in chapter 4, titled “Principle, Methods, and Competencies to
Facilitate Community Participation.” The 48 papers provided direct sources for the
description of 64 methods that I then analyzed and classified during phase 1b. To classify
these methods, I coupled the process of developing a taxonomy (Nickerson, Varshney,
and Muntermann, 2013) with the coding strategies suggested by Saldaña (2010) and
results display strategies suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). The result of this first
phase is a classification system organized along two main dimensions, i.e., levels of
community participation and purpose of the methods. More details about the
development of the classification system can be found in section 3.4, while the resulting
classification system can be found in chapter 5. The development of the classification
systems was the last step of the first phase.

In the second phase, I interviewed practitioners with experience in HE projects
and asked them about their experience in the field, with a special focus on their strategies
to facilitate community participation. I leveraged the Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
(Flanagan, 1954) to elicit practitioners’ experiences, and Thematic Analysis (TA) (Braun
& Clarke, 2006) to analyze their experiences. More details about the research approach
for this phase is described in section 3.5 and the results of this phase are reported in
chapter 6, titled “Benefits and Challenges of Using Participatory Methods,” and in
chapter 7, titled “Trust and Assets.”
In the pages that follow, I will first provide the details of the first phase, including
overview of methods for data collection and data analysis (section 3.3 and 3.4). Then, I
will describe the details of the second phase, including selection criteria and methods to
recruit practitioners, interview approach, and analysis of interview transcripts (section
3.5). Table 3.1 reports all project activities and the resulting outcomes for each phase.
Table 3.1 Project Activities and Outcomes
Phas
e
Data collection
process
Obtained
data
Data analysis
process Outcome
1a Qualitative Systematic Review
48 journal
articles
Qualitative content
analysis Chapter 4
1b Snowballing 64 methods
Qualitative content
analysis &
Taxonomy
development process
Chapter 5
1c Semi-structured interviews
16 interview
transcripts Thematic Analysis Chapter 6 & 7

3.3 Phase 1a: Qualitative Systematized Review
Through my previous research and experience as adviser and instructor of global and HE
projects, I became acquainted with many field-guides and manuals that provide useful
information to ensure that students and professionals could appropriately involve
community members in HE and similar projects. Examples of these field-guides and
manuals are:
 The Human-Centered Design methods available in the IDEO toolkit (IDEO,
2014),
 The field guide for environmental engineers working in developing countries
developed by Mihelcic et al. (2009), and
 Baillie’s (2010) book, which describes processes for assessing needs and
feasibility of transferring a technology into a disadvantaged community.
However, I discovered these sources in a very unsystematic and almost serendipitous
way. I had never actually followed a systematic process to identify a thorough list of
field-guides, manuals, and scholarly publications that could inform HE practice,
especially as related to best practices to involve community members. Thus, to collect
data to answer my research questions, I undertook a qualitative systematized review
(QSR) as the first step of my dissertation. A QSR is not the same as a traditional
systematic literature review because it “attempts to include one or more elements of the
systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a
systematic review” (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 102). While I have included aspects of
systematic literature reviews such as definition of clear inclusion criteria and adherence
to the PRISMA selection process guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009), I violated some

aspects of systematic literature review (e.g., I was the only reviewer and I focused only
on one database). Additionally, I am not claiming that my results are objective and
generalizable (as it should be for systematic literature review); rather I argue that my
results are transferable and trustworthy (as typical of qualitative studies). Yet, as
explained in section 3.3.3, I took several measures to increase the reliability and
trustworthiness of my process. In the following sub-sections (3.3.1 to 3.3.4), I will
describe the details of the QSR process that I used to collect 48 journal publications and
then to analyze them.
3.3.1 Selection Criteria
My goal was to collect relatively recent journal publications that provide insights
(principles, processes, methods, examples, and so on) on how to practice HE in a way
that facilitates community participation. Specifically, before starting the search and
selection process, I translated this goal into the following three inclusion criteria:
IC1. The papers need to focus on HE, broadly defined as design under-constrains to
improve the well-being of underserved populations internationally. This criterion
extends to papers that touch on topics similar to HE, e.g., appropriate technology,
social justice, sustainable community development, or global service-learning in
engineering, and participatory design in developing countries.
IC2. The papers need to focus on the social or procedural aspects of practicing HE.
Examples of these are:
a. Frameworks, methodologies, processes, approaches, principles, or
collection of those.
b. Methods, tools, techniques, dimensions, mindsets

c. Lessons learned
d. Case studies focused on small-scale or community-based projects.
IC3. Published since 1992 because this is when the first Engineers Without Borders
(EWB) chapter was established (Paye, 2010).
During the process of selecting the papers, I was also able to establish criteria for
discarding papers. I recorded these reasons to further clarify the scope of my research. I
called these reasons exclusion criteria (ECs):
EC1. Papers in this category were in direct violation of the IC1, i.e, not focused on HE
or similar. Examples include papers focused on:
a. Environmental science or sustainable development in terms of only
environmental sustainability.
b. Management of forests or natural resources (e.g., water), without any
direct link to engineering or technology (typically policy related).
c. Emergency relief: although the term humanitarian is often associated with
first response to natural catastrophes (e.g., 2010 earthquake in Haiti), my
research does not include this specific topic, because engineering students
do not (and likely should not) get involved with first response to
humanitarian emergencies.
d. Healthcare: even if situated in developing countries, but does not include
discussion of the social aspects and procedures of developing technologies
related to healthcare (i.e., I did include papers that talked about healthcare
technologies for underserved populations).

e. Food security: even if situated in developing countries, but does not
include discussion of the social aspects and procedures of developing
technologies related to food security.
f. Education initiatives in developing countries or educational initiatives not
related to HE.
g. Development of technologies in non-developing countries.
EC2. Papers that met EC1, but violated EC2 because they focused on the
technical/physical aspects of technology being developed for an underserved
community, but did not talk about the social factors of the technology.
EC3. Papers that met EC1, but focused on large-scale projects. Example of these are
papers focused on creation of businesses, industrialization of developing countries,
and/or related to interventions of large international organizations (e.g., USAID,
World Bank, and others).
EC4. Papers that met EC1, but primarily focused on students learning or on curriculum
reform. This includes papers that discuss the impacts of HE classes on students’
learning or investigate characteristics of students enrolled in such classes.
Additionally, I excluded papers that focused on how to integrate HE in the
engineering curriculum. However, I did include papers focused on report of
student-led HE projects and methods, principles, mindsets and others to teach to
students (these papers in fact meet IC2).
EC5. Papers that focus on Information and Communication Technology for
Development (ICT4D), Geographic Information System (GIS), or web-based/“e-
“ issues, even if they consider the social aspects and procedures.

EC6. Papers that were published in proceedings of conferences or were not peer-
reviewed papers (e.g., editorials and so on).
The inclusion and exclusion criteria presented above are also the product of the reliability
process described in subsection 3.3.3.
3.3.2 Search and Selection Process
To identify the final collection of 48 papers, I followed four steps, adapted from the
PRISMA selection process (Liberati et al., 2009): 1) database search, 2) title screening, 3)
abstract screening, and 4) full text appraisal. I also searched for papers in two journals
focused on HE programs (International Journal of Service Learning in Engineering and
Journal of Humanitarian Engineering) that are not indexed in Compedex and Inspec.
Below, I report details about each phase:
Database search: to identify papers I looked into the Compedex and Inspec
databases using Engineering Village. I focused on these two databases because they are
the most comprehensive for engineering-related fields. I used 47 search strings (reported
in Appendix A), which yielded to an initial total of 1448 articles. In many cases, I had to
use compound search strings to narrow the results to the space of interest. For instance,
“community participation” would led to too many results, most of which were most likely
not related to his specific study. Therefore, to narrow it down I used the compound search
string “community participation” AND “engineering,” which led to 87 resulting journal
papers. Search strings like “appropriate technology” AND design, “sustainable
development” AND “developing world,” and “participatory” AND “developing
countries,” led to the largest number of papers (216, 205, 158, respectively). Nine search
strings led to no results (i.e., no papers were found), fifteen strings led to 10 or less

papers, twenty strings led to 11 to 100 papers, only one string led to 101-200 papers, and
only two string led to more than 200 papers, the highest being 216.
Title and source screening: the goal of this step was to exclude duplicates and
papers that were clearly violated the inclusion criteria. Thus, I screened titles of the 1448
papers to discard 1) duplicates (n = 314) and 2) papers that met the EC criteria based on
titles (n = 934). At this point, I did not apply EC4 because I wanted to read the abstracts
of those types of paper before actually discarding them, as they might have included
information on HE practice in addition to students’ learning. Of the 934 discarded papers,
766 papers were discarded due to EC1, 35 due to EC2, 28 due to EC3, 46 due to EC5,
and 55 due to EC6. Table 3.2 reports examples of titles of papers that were discarded
because of EC1, EC2, EC3, and EC5. In screening the titles, if I was in doubt, I decided
to keep the paper rather than discarding it. This choice was to avoid discarding
potentially important papers that had vague and/or inaccurate titles. This process left me
with 200 papers for the abstract screening step. To note is that these 200 papers that
survived were the product of only 29 of the 47 search strings I used (that is, 18 search
strings did not produced papers that survived the title and source screening, because
produced duplicates or papers that did not meet some IC).

Table 3.2. Example of Titles of Papers that Were Discarded
Example of titles discarded because EC1 (not focused on humanitarian
engineering)
“Sustainable urbanization in megacities role of nonmotorized transportation”
“Model of Tsunami preparedness for Indonesian Tsunami prone areas communities”
“Conflicts over water resource management in Brazil: A case study of inter-basin
transfers”
“Point of use water treatment with forward osmosis for emergency relief”
“Participatory impact assessment of soil and water conservation scenarios in Oum
Zessar watershed, Tunisia”
“Implementing an inclusive curriculum for women in engineering education”
“Ambient Assisted Living healthcare frameworks, platforms, standards, and quality
attributes”
Examples of title discarded because EC2 (focused on technology)
“Small hydro power in India: Current status and future perspectives”
“Transferring technology for surface-wave testing and seismic site-response analysis in
Haiti”
“Point-of-care nucleic acid testing for infectious diseases”
“Keeping PV projects alive: Financial sustainability of PV implementation in
Swaziland”
Example of titles discarded because EC3 (large scale)
“Sustainability of Large-Scale Algal Biofuel Production in India”
“Energizing the world: Electric energy in emerging economies”
“Ten years of World Bank action in transport: Evaluation”
Example of titles discarded because of EC5 (Information and communication
tech)
“Women and ICT in Africa and the Middle East: Changing Selves, Changing
Societies”
“On the emancipatory role of rural information systems”
“E- and efficiency, accountability and transparency”
Abstract screening. At this step, I reviewed the abstracts of the 200 papers to
decide whether they met IC1 and IC2. This process led me to discard 145 papers. Of the
discarded papers, 43 were discarded due to EC1, 23 due to EC2, 28 due to EC3, 33 due to
EC4, 5 due to EC5, and 13 due to EC6. A total of 55 papers survived the abstract
screening process. These 55 papers were the product of only 19 of the 47 search strings I
used (that is 28 search strings did not produced papers that survived the abstract
screening stage). To these 55 papers, I added 26 papers that I retrieved from the archives

of the International Journal of Service Learning in Engineering, which is not indexed in
Compedex and Inspec. These 25 papers were selected by applying the same criteria used
for the 55 papers that survived the abstract screening. Thus, at this stage, I was left with
80 papers for the next step.
Full-text appraisal. For this step, I read the 80 papers that survived the abstract
screening step and I kept 48 papers. Of the 33 discarded papers, 5 were discarded due to
EC1, 8 due to EC2, 11 due to EC3, 6 due to EC4, and 3 due to EC6. The next step was to
analyze the papers and to look for strategies, techniques, and other factors that may
facilitate community participation. Before describing the anlysis process (in section
3.3.4), I will report on my strategy to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the
selection process I described above.
3.3.3 Reliability of Selection Process
The main limitation to the selection process described above is that I undertook the
process alone, while best practices for systematic literature reviews suggest that two or
more researchers should undertake the selection process. To mitigate this limitation, I
asked two colleagues to apply my approach to a smaller set of papers and then I
calculated inter-rater reliability and discussed disagreement with them. First, I verified
my title screening process. I gave 50 titles to two raters for review. The raters reviewed
the titles independently and then sent me their results. Then, I calculated Cohen’s and
Fleiss’ kappa to assess Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR). Cohen’s k between rater 1 and
myself was 0.65 (substantial agreement based on Landis and Koch (1977)), and 0.79
(substantial) between rater 2 and myself. After I evaluated IRR, I met with the two raters
separately and discussed disagreement. Most of disagreement was due to a lack of clarity

of my inclusion and exclusion criteria that led to confusion. This allowed me to better
rephrase and clarify my criteria. After these meetings, I repeated the title screening
process again by myself.
Second and lastly, I asked the two same raters to read 20 abstracts and to make a
decision regarding their inclusion or exclusion. Again, they rated the abstracts
independently and sent their results to me and then I calculated Cohen’s k. The results
were Cohen’s k of 0.68 with rater 1, and 0.79 with rater 2 (substantial agreement for
both). Again, I met with the two raters and discussed disagreement. Then, I repeated the
abstract screening process.
The process of calculating IRR and discussing disagreement allowed me to
solidify and clarify my selection criteria and led me to include two more papers in my
second pass (before IRR I had a final set of 46 papers, after IRR 48). The numbers
reported in section 3.3.2 relate to post-IRR process.
3.3.4 Analysis and Synthesis of Selected Papers
To analyze and synthesize the 48 papers, I followed a qualitative content analysis
approach that Hsieh and Shannon (2005) define as “a research method for the subjective
interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of
coding and identifying themes or patterns” (p. 1278). However, before actually analyzing
the papers, I divided the papers in two groups: group A included conceptual and
theoretical papers (n = 27), while group B included cases studies or reports of projects (n
= 21). I used the group A papers to develop my codebook and then I used the codebook
to analyze the group B papers.

The first step of analyzing the group A papers was to create a first set of codes
through an inductive coding process. This process led me to create 98 different codes.
Then, I began grouping the codes into themes. In this process, I used sticky notes and
white boards to arrange and re-arrange the 98 initial codes into themes. After a series of
attempts and iterations, I produced 14 major themes. Finally, I grouped the 14 major
themes in three overarching themes, named “principles,” “methods,” and “competencies.”
During this process, I often consulted members of dissertation committee (especially my
chair) to discuss these themes. The result of this process is presented in chapter 4.
3.4 Phase 1b: Classification of Methods
Thanks to the qualitative systematized review and a further snowballing step (see section
3.4.1), I was able to retrieve a total of 64 methods, which I classified by leveraging a
systematic process similar of that used to create taxonomies (Nickerson et al., 2013). This
process is described in sections 3.4.2-4, while the resulting classification system is
reported in chapter 5. Here, it is worth reiterating that the goal was not to collect all
existing methods, but rather to collect a large enough sample that would allow me to
create a use-inspired framework. Thus, the 64 methods retrieved are a good
representation of existing methods, but they are surely not all the methods that have been
used or proposed to be used to support community participation in HE.
3.4.1 Collecting the Final Set of Methods
The systematic literature review process described in section 3.3 led me to retrieve 48
papers that described practices that facilitate community participation in HE projects.
However, only 10 papers described methods in detail within the paper itself. Specifically,
these 10 papers provided a total of 11 methods, as reported in table 3.3. In table 3.3, the

first column (QSR Source) reports the article I retrieved with the qualitative systematized
review (QSR), the second column the name of the method mentioned in the QSR source,
and the third column (type of method) reports to the grouping I presented in chapter 4.
Table 3.3. Sources Obtained Through the QSR Process
QSR Source Name of method Type of method
Avrai et al. (2012) Risk Management Framework
4.2.4 – Evaluation and Decision
Making tools
Aslam et al. (2013) Photovoice 4.2.5 – Participatory methods
Bowen and Acciaioli
(2015) Arena model
4.2.4 – Stakeholder identification
methods
Garfi & Ferrer-Mati
(2011)
Multicriteria Analysis
(MCA)
4.2.4 – Evaluation and Decision
Making tools
Leydens and Lucena
(2014)
The Privilege Walk and
Privilege by Numbers 4.2.6 – Self-awareness tools
Design Evaluation
Matrix on Human
Capabilities
4.2.4 – Evaluation and Decision
Making tools
Magoon et al. (2010) Message board 4.2.7 – Miscellaneous
McConville and
Mihelcic (2007) Sustainability Matrix
4.2.4 – Evaluation and Decision
Making tools
Okello et al. (2014) SWOT – AHP 4.2.4 – Evaluation and Decision Making tools
Ones (2013) Theater 4.2.5 – Participatory methods
Walton & DeRenzi
(2009) Value-Sensitive Design 4.2.2 – Design tools
The other 37 papers, instead, referenced and/or simply mentioned methods that
could be used to facilitate community participation. Thus, to collect further specific
methods, I had to follow a snowball process starting from the 48 papers I had already
acquired. Table 3.3 summarizes the process by showing how some of the collected papers
led me to additional sources that I used to create the classification system reported in
Chapter 5. Table 3.3 is organized in four columns. The first (QSR source) reports the
source from the qualitative systematized review (QSR). The second column (Suggested

method) reports the name of the method(s) suggest by the QRS source. The third column
(Retrieval approach) reports the way I retrieved the direct source of the methods, which is
then reported in the fourth column (Direct source). For instance, Amadei et al. (2009)
(the QSR source) present a model for sustainable HE projects and suggests that rapid
rural appraisal methods (the suggest method) should be used, citing Beebe’s (2001) field
guide to rapid rural assessment (the direct source). In this case, the retrieval approach was
direct citation, but in other cases, where the direct citation was not available, I used
Google search. This snowball process (whenever possible) led me to six main sources of
methods, which contained a cumulative total of 90 methods. Many sources reported the
same methods. For instance, Alemedom et al. (1997), Freundenberger (2008), and
PeaceCorps (2005) all reported the participatory mapping method. Thus, after deleting
duplicates, I obtained a final count of 64 methods, which I classified following the
process reported in the next sub-sections (3.4.2-4). Appendix B reports a table that lists
all the methods, along with their direct source(s).

Table 3.4. Sources of Methods Obtained by Snowballing From the QSR Sources
QSR
Source
Suggested
method
Retrieval
approach Direct source
Number of
methods
Amadei et
al. (2009)
Rapid Rural
Appraisal Direct citation Beebe (2001) 10
Chisolm et
al. (2014)
Hygiene
Evaluation
Procedures
Direct citation Almedom et al. (1997) 7
Hussain &
Sanders
(2012) and
Hussain et
al. (2010)
Generative
Design Tools
They cite a conference paper
(Sanders) that provides a
classification of these tools, but I
could not find a manual with the
description of the actual tools.
0
Leydens
and Lucena
(2014)
Human
Centered
Design
Direct citation IDEO’s toolkit (2014) 37
Social Analysis
Systems Direct citation
Chevalier and
Buckles (2008) 18
White
(1997)
Participatory
Rural Appraisal
(PRA)
White (1997)
cited very old
work, so I
preferred to look
for more recent
publications
related to PRA
Freudenberger
(2008) 10
Peace Corps
(2005). 8
Issues
Structuring
Methods (ISM)
White (1997) lists a series of
method under the umbrella of ISM,
but does not cite a source. A google
search did not lead to any recent
publications of ISMs.
0
Total (before discarding duplicates) 90

3.4.2 Developing Classification System
To classify the 64 methods that I retrieved, I followed a systematic process similar to
those used to develop taxonomies, i.e., “systems for grouping objects of interest in a
domain based on common characteristics” (Nickerson et al., 2013, p. 338), where, in my
case, the “objects” are the 64 methods that I collected. I emphasize the word “similar” in
the previous sentence, because while I am not developing a ‘true’ taxonomy, Nickerson
et al.’s (2013) strategy allowed me to provide more structure to my process of developing
the classification system for the methods.
According to Nickerson et al. (2013), developing a taxonomy is an iterative and
creative process which requires a mix of an empirical-to-conceptual (inductive) or a
conceptual-to-empirical (deductive) analysis of the objects (i.e., the methods I collected)
to develop the dimensions and the levels of each dimension (Nickerson et al., 2013).
However, before analyzing the methods I set ending conditions (Nickerson et al., 2013),
which provided an indicator to understand when the process of analyzing the methods
and constructing the classification system was complete. At the end, once the ending
conditions were met, I have also tested the reliability of the classification system by
calculating IRR, and I modified the classification system as needed. In Figure 3.1, I
represent this iterative process using a flowchart. In the following subsections, I report
my ending conditions (3.4.2.1), the deductive-inductive process of analyzing the methods
(3.4.2.2), and the IRR process and its consequences.
The final classification system is a 3×3 matrix. The rows are organized around
three major project phases, i.e., 1) problem framing and planning, 2) context-related
information gathering, and 3) solution development. Within each phase, the methods are

grouped together based on their specific function. For example, within the problem
framing and planning phase, there are four groups based on four distinct, but related
functions: 1) to understanding a problem, 2) to formulate goals or objectives, 3) to rank
goals or objectives, and 4) to plan a project. The columns are organized around three
levels of community participation, i.e., passive, consultative, and co-constructive. The
classification system is further described in chapter 5.

3.4.2.1 Ending Conditions
Before beginning classifying PFSMs, Nickerson et al. (2013) explain that researchers
need to choose ending conditions. There are two types of ending conditions: objective
and subjective. Nickerson et al (2013) add that a researcher is free to select all or a
sample of the ending conditions (both subjective and objective) as they see the need. In
the example reported in their paper, they use only two objective conditions and all the
subjective conditions to develop a taxonomy of mobile applications.
Figure 3.1. Flowchart of Process to Develop the Classification System

The objective ending conditions comprise:
a) “all objects or a representative sample of objects have been examined”;
b) “no object was merged with a similar object or split into multiple objects in the
last iteration”;
c) “at least one object is classified under every characteristics of every dimension”;
d) “no new dimensions or characteristics were added in the last iteration”;
e) “no dimensions or characteristics were merged or split in the last iteration” ;
f) “every dimension is unique and not repeated”;
g) “every characteristic is unique within its dimension”;
h) “each cell is unique and is not repeated” (p. 344)
In the case of this study, I decided that I would end the development process when I met
the objective ending conditions a), b), d), e), f), g), and h). I decided to exclude the
ending condition c) because for each “goal,” I could not find methods that spanned all the
community participation levels.
The subjective ending conditions comprise:
i. Conciseness: “a taxonomy should contain a limited number of dimensions and a
limited number of characteristics in each dimension, because an extensive
classification scheme with many dimensions and many characteristics may exceed
the cognitive load of the researcher and thus be difficult to comprehend and apply”
(p. 341).
ii. Robustness: “a useful taxonomy should contain enough dimensions and
characteristics to clearly differentiate the objects of interest” (p. 341). The

condition of robustness provides the lower bound for the number of dimensions
and characteristics of a taxonomy, while the conciseness determines condition the
upper number.
iii. Comprehensiveness: requires that the taxonomy has all the dimensions of the
object of interest.
iv. Extendible-ness: “a useful taxonomy should allow for inclusion of additional
dimensions and new characteristics within a dimension when new types of objects
appear” (p. 341).
v. Explanatory-ness: “provide useful explanations of the nature of the objects under
study or of future objects to help us understand the objects” (p. 342).
For developing the classification system, I decided to drop the conditions of
comprehensiveness, because I am not interested in all of the possible dimensions of the
methods, but rather I want to classify them based on their main dimensions, in my case,
design phase (specific goal) and level of community participation. I decided to drop the
condition of extendible-ness because I believe that evidence that such condition is met
can only be collected through a long period of time that exceeds the timeframe of this
dissertation.
3.4.2.2 Deductive-inductive analysis of the methods
Once the ending conditions have been set, a researcher can proceed with the development
of the classification system’s dimensions and related characteristics. The process of
developing the taxonomy is iterative. At any iteration, empirical-to-conceptual (i.e.,
inductive) or conceptual-to-empirical (i.e., inductive) approaches to analyze the methods
can be used. For instance, in Nickerson et al.’s (2013) example, they ran seven iterations

to create the taxonomy, of which four were empirical-to-conceptual (i.e., inductive) and
the others conceptual-to-empirical (i.e., inductive).
In the case of this dissertation, I used an iterative mix of deductive and inductive
approaches to create the classification system. I began with IDEO methods because it was
the source that provided the largest number of methods. I started tracking information
using color-coding for different aspects of the methods, e.g., participation, function,
duration, difficulty, required supporting materials and other aspects (as shown in figure
3.2). These dimensions were particularly explicit in IDEO methods (figure 3.3), but were
not reported explicitly in other methods. Because many methods did not include
information related to the duration, difficulty, and required materials, I was able to
classify the methods only along two main dimensions (i.e., project phase and community
participation). While color-coding each method, I was also recording this information in
an excel spreadsheet. Specifically for the participation dimension, I tried to classify the
methods using participation dimensions reported in Appendix C (which were based on
the literature review in section 2.6). However, I soon encountered methods that did not
really fit that framework, so I began recording other information, which could have
informed the participation level. For instance, I recorded who participated in the methods
and what each participant did. Figure 3.3 reports one of the first methods for which I
began recording this information. Similarly, I collected information regarding the
function of the methods by simply recording what the description of the methods
suggested about its specific goal.

Once I recorded information related from all the methods, I began creating themes
that led to groupings for the methods. This was a very iterative and creative process,
during which I used sticky notes to move around methods to group them in different
categories based on their function and the way community members participate. An
example of these grouping process using sticky notes is reported in figure 3.3. During this
process, I created different frameworks that I then discarded. For instance, I had first
Figure 3.2. Legend for Color-Coding Scheme
Figure 3.3. Example of Application of Color-Coding on an IDEO Method

organized the methods in four participation levels: passive, active, constructive, and co-
constructive. While the passive category survived, the active became consultative and I
merged the constructive with the co-constructive. Similarly, I went through a similar
process to create the grouping based on the function of the method. To do so, I grouped
methods together based on the similarity of their goals and created a first level of
function-groups. Then, I grouped these function groups in larger project phases. In one of
the first attempt I had six function groups, which then became four, and finally five.
Every time, I would create new levels or grouping for each dimension (participation
levels and function), I would apply this grouping to all methods. Many times, there were
methods that did not fit the grouping so I had to create new groupings. Thus, the whole
process was very iterative.
At end of this iterative process, I had created a framework that organized the
methods in a 5×3 matrix. The row were organized based on five design phases: 1)
problem identification, 2) gathering and framing information, 3) objective identification,
4) solution ideation and selection, and 5) solution development and implementation. The
columns were organized along three participation levels: passive, consultative, co-
constructive. As mentioned before, these two resulting dimensions were not the only
important characteristics of the methods, but were the only aspects that clearly cut across
all the methods. For instance, both IDEO and Almedom et al. (1997) provided
information about required materials for using the methods, but other sources did not
provide this information explicitly. If other sources had provided this information
explicitly, then I could have created a third dimension related to amount of required

materials. The IRR calculation process, as described below, allowed me to revise the
groupings and led me to the final framework that I described earlier in this section.
3.4.2.3 Inter-Rater Reliability of the classification system
To evaluate the reliability of the classification system, I asked four research colleagues
(an associate professor, and three engineering education PhD students) to evaluate 19
methods (it was supposed to be 20, but I inadvertently distributed 19 methods).
Specifically, for each method, I asked them to select to which project phase and which
participation level the method belonged. They were also given the opportunity to indicate
that they were not sure, thus avoiding forcing them to choose a category when unsure.
Two raters were randomly given 10 methods and the other raters were given 9 methods.
Each method was rated by two raters as reported in Table 3.5. This division of
assignments was done to reduce the burden on each rater, while at the same time ensure
that the classification system was tested using about a third of all the methods.
Because of how I decided to distribute the methods among the four raters, I had to
use Fleiss’ kappa rather than Cohen’s kappa to calculate inter-rater reliability. In fact,
while Cohen’s kappa requires that the same two raters rate each item, Fleiss’s kappa
requires only that the same number of raters rate each item (i.e., two raters for each
method) (Fleiss, 1971). The resulting kappa values were .49 for project phase (moderate)
and .73 for participation level (substantial). The result for the participation level was
highly satisfactory also because there was no instance in which all the raters (myself and
the other two raters that evaluate a method) completely disagreed. Consequently, I did
not modify the participation levels.

The result for the project phase rating was instead unsatisfactory, because the
kappa was quite low and there were five methods for which all raters disagreed.
Unfortunately, a formal debriefing meeting with all raters was not possible because of the
busy schedule of the raters and the fact that one rater had left Purdue. I was still able to
consult informally and quickly with the raters, who shared their general opinions on the
classification system. Based on this informal and quick feedback and an examination of
the method that resulted in greater disagreement, I updated the classification system
related to the project phase. The new and final dimension comprises three major phases:
1) problem framing and planning, 2) information gathering, and 3) solution development.
Each phase was further divided in more specific categories based on the specific function
of the method. The final classification system is reported in chapter 5.

Table 3.5. Assignment of Methods for Review
Method ID Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4
1 × ×
2 × ×
3 × ×
4 × ×
5 × ×
6 × ×
7 × ×
8 × ×
9 × ×
10 × ×
11 × ×
12 × ×
13 × ×
14 × ×
15 × ×
16 × ×
17 × ×
18 × ×
19 × ×

3.5 Phase 2: Interviews of Practitioners
While the first phase of this dissertation aimed at collecting and classifying methods, the
second phase focused on what actually happens in the field. Specifically, I am interested
in understanding what conditions may facilitate community participation in HE and
similar projects. To achieve this goal, I interviewed 17 practitioners that had experience
in conducting HE projects.
In the next subsections, I first provide a profile of my study participant and
explanation of how I selected the participants (3.5.1). Second, I will describe the
interview procedures I used to elicit practitioners’ experiences and process followed to

transcribe and open-license the transcripts (3.5.2). Finally, I will explain the process I
followed to analyze the transcript of the interview with my study participants (3.5.3).
3.5.1 Selection, Recruitment, and Profiles of Participants.
I used three criteria to select participants for this study:
1. They must have participated to at least one HE project from beginning to finish,
including travelling abroad. This requirement is to ensure that the participant had
some substantial experience in the field.
2. The participants must have worked on a project within the last 5 years. This
requirement ensured that they had fresh memories of their experiences.
3. The participants must have a technical background or must have worked very
closely with technical professionals in HE or similar projects.
To select participants that met these three criteria, I used my personal network as well as
a snowballing process in which participants introduced me to other potential participants.
Through this process, I contacted 21 participants, interviewed 17, and kept 14 transcripts
for the final analysis. Of the five participants I contacted but did not interview, two did
not respond my invitation, one declined the invitation, and the last one accepted the
invitation but then we were not able to talk because he was on sabbatical and we were
unable to find a mutually convenient time.
I decided to discard three transcripts because of three different reasons. In the first
case, although the participant was very knowledgeable on HE, he had not been involved
in any project in the last five years, thus did not meet the second selection criterion. I
realized he did not meet the criterion only during the interview, otherwise I would have
not invited him to participate in the first place. In this case, I completed the interview, but

then I did not put resources and time into transcribe and analyze it. In the second case, the
participant instead of answering my questions, he continued sending me his articles to
read. Because of this, the interview did not last long and did not elicit any information
that was not already in the papers he sent me (which I had already analyzed because of
the QSR described in section 3.3). Given the lack of interesting material in the interview,
I decided not to put efforts and resources in transcribing and analyzing it. In the third and
last case, the participant insisted to have the interview in Italian rather than English,
because she felt more comfortable talking in Italian. I accepted her request thinking that I
would have had the time to translate the interview afterwards. However, I then realized I
did not have the time and the resources to translate the interview and thus I decided to
exclude this interview.
The selection process left me with 14 transcripts to analyze, which is well in the
range of the number of interviews (10 to 15) I had proposed in my preliminary exam.
Only four of the participants were women and the rest were men. Only one participant
was Hispanic, while all the others were white-Caucasian. Four participants worked
outside academia, while all the other were affiliated to a university and were all involved
with student-led HE project in different roles. Of the 14 participants, 10 accepted to have
their identity associated with this study, while the other four were left anonymous.
Specifically, one participant asked to be left anonymous since the beginning. The other
three instead accepted to have their name associated with the study at first, but then they
did not have the time to review the transcript. Consequently, they decided to be included
only if anonymized. Below, I report brief profiles of the 11 participants who agreed to
release their identity to the public.

 Dr. David Munoz, PhD in mechanical engineering at Purdue, and has done
extensive engineering work in Honduras and served as director of the
Humanitarian Engineering minor at Colorado School of Mines.
 Emily Wigley, engineer at Knowles Electronics, EWB professional chapter
member, who has been involved in many HE projects through EWB.
 Gary Burniske, Managing Director of Purdue University’s Center for Global Food
Security, has 35 years of international experience in international land
development work with a technical focus on sustainable agriculture. He is actively
engaged in supporting I2D lab’s HE projects at Purdue.
 Dr. David Frossard, is an adjunct professor in the Humanitarian Engineering
program, Colorado School of Mines. He served twice as a Peace Corps volunteer,
in the Philippines (‘85-’87) and Zambia (‘03-’05). He is the former faculty
advisor for the Mines student chapters of Engineers Without Borders, Bridges to
Prosperity, Engineers for a Better World, and Amnesty International. He
specializes in the anthropology – theory and practice – of sustainable community
development.
 Dr. Anne Dare, Post Doc Research Associate at Purdue University, has engaged
in a global service-learning project and her dissertation work was related to water
and sanitation in the Middle East. She also has supervised the Global Design
Teams program at Purdue.
 Dr. Marissa Jablonski is an Associate Researcher and Instructor in the Sustainable
Peacebuilding Master’s Program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

(UWM) and holds a PhD in civil/environmental engineering from UWM. She
serves as mentor of UWM’s EWB student chapter.
 Dr. Kevin Passino, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and director
of Humanitarian Engineering Center at The Ohio State University. He has many
years of experience with student-led HE projects.
 Robin Semer, environmental engineer and project manager at Parsons. She
volunteers for the Chicago Engineers without Borders chapter and has been
project leader for one EWB project in Central America.
 Mark Henderson, Associate Dean of Barrett Honors College, professor in the
Department of Engineering, and director of GlobalResolve at ASU. Through
GlobalResolve, he has been involved in numerous HE projects.
 Ken Kastman, P.E., president at Earth-Whys, LLC, an earth-related consulting
company; and Senior Consultant at AECOM. He is a member of the EWB
Chicago professional chapter and has been involved with several HE projects
through EWB.
The last four participants that were not listed above decided to be anonymous. I
assigned them the pseudonyms of Robert, Michael, Andrew, and George. To maintain
their anonymity, I provide only few details of their background to demonstrate that they
met the selection criteria. Robert is a faculty in an engineering school of an R1 University,
who has extensive experience doing HE projects in Africa with students. Michael has a
leadership position in an international HE NGO based in a country outside the USA.
Andrew is a professional bridge engineer, who has been volunteering for an international
HE NGO. George is a faculty member in environmental sciences who has been doing

interdisciplinary HE projects with students the past 15 years. Table 3.6 provides a
summary of the key demographics of the study participants, including title, affiliation,
educational background, and other relevant experiences.
Table 3.6. Key Characteristics of Study Participants.
Participant Title Affiliation Educational background Relevant experiences
Anne Dare
Post Doc
Research
Associate
Innovation
to
Internationa
l
Developme
nt Lab,
Purdue
University
PhD, in
Agricultural and
Biological
Engineering,
Purdue
Global Design Teams
Marissa
Jablonski
Associate
Researcher
and Instructor
Sustainable
Peacebuildi
ng Master’s
Program,
University
of
Wisconsin-
Milwaukee
PhD in
Civil/Environme
ntal
Engineering,
UWM
Mentor of EWB-UWM
student chapter
Gary
Burniske
Managing
Director
Center for
Global
Food
Security,
Purdue
University
MS in Forest
Economics, BS
in Natural
Resources
Management,
University of
Massachusetts
in Amherst
35 years of
international (former
Peace Corp volunteer)
David
Frossard
Adjunct
professor in
Humanitarian
Engineering
Colorado
School of
Mines
PhD, University
of California at
Irvine
Former Peace Corps
volunteer and faculty
advisor for student
chapters of Engineers
Without Borders, and
others.

Table 3.6 continued
David
Munoz
Retired
faculty,
Emeritus
Associate
Professor
Engineering
Division,
Colorado
School of
Mines
PhD, Purdue
University
Working with non-
profits in the areas
generally designated as
humanitarian or peace
engineering. Former
director of Mines’ HE
program
Emily
Wigley
Applications
Engineer
Knowles
Electronics
B.S. in
Acoustical
Engineering,
Purdue
Former president of
Engineers without
Borders Chicagoland
Professional Chapter
Kevin
Passino Professor
Electrical and
Computer
Engineering,
The Ohio
State
University
PhD,
University of
Notre Dame
Director of the
Humanitarian
Engineering Center,
The Ohio State
University
Robin Semer Environmental Engineer AECOM
MS, Civil
Environmental
Engineering,
University of
Illinois at
Chicago
Member of EWB
Chicagoland
professional chapter
Mark
Henderson Professor
Department of
Engineering,
ASU
PhD,
Mechanical
Engineering,
Purdue
University
Director of Global
Resolve
Ken
Kastman President
Earth-Whys,
LLC
MSCE,
Geotechnical
Engineering,
Purdue
University
Member of EWB
Chicagoland
professional chapter
Robert Faculty R1 Univeristy
PhD in an
engineering
field
Supervisor of global
service-learning
engineering projects
Michael
International
Humanitarian
Engineering
NGO
M.S. in an
engineering
field

Andrew Bridge Engineer
Consultancy
firm
M.S. in an
engineering
field
Volunteer for an
International
Humanitarian

Engineering NGO
George Faculty PhD
Director of an
international,
interdisciplinary
service-learning
program
3.5.2 Elicitation of Practitioners’ Experience
To elicit practitioners’ experience in HE projects, I interviewed them following a semi-
structured protocol that included Flanagan’s (1954) Critical Incident Technique (CIT).
Flanagan (1954) describes Critical Incidents (CI) as “extreme behavior, either
outstandingly effective or ineffective with respect to attaining the general aims of activity”
(p. 338). In CIT, the interviewer asks the interviewee to think about a time when the
aims of the activities under study were achieved outstandingly well or badly. In this case,
I was interested in activities that facilitated or hindered community participation in HE
projects. The elicitation of CIs enabled me to understand challenges and needed pre-
requisites associated with using some of the methods collected and analyzed during phase
I and other broader consideration related to the practice of HE.
At the beginning of the interview, I asked interviewees a set of ‘grand tour questions’
(i.e., how did you get involved in HE? What do you usually do during a field visit?)
(Spradley, 1979). Using this approach allowed me to frame and guide the subsequent
discussion, including follow-up questions and probes (Spradley, 1979). During the first
part of the interview, I also used CIT to elicit specific examples of extraordinary good or
bad situations they encountered. Toward the end of the interview (usually after 45 min to
1 hour), I shared a four-page file that contained one-sentence descriptions and small
visualizations of a selected sample of the methods acquired during phase 1. I selected a

sample of methods that represented most of the functions and all three participation levels.
The goal was to provide a large enough range to elicit knowledge of the practitioners.
Then, I asked them to go through the method and to comment on them. The goal was to
gather their experiences using these methods and to elicit other experience using methods
similar to those available. If they were not familiar with the methods, I also asked to
comment on what limitations they could imagine and why they would prefer to use some
methods and not others.
Some of the questions I asked them during the interview are:
1. What strategies do you usually use to involve community members during HE
projects?
2. What strategies have been proven more successful than others? Can you provide
some examples?
3. What do you think were the reason for the success/failure of using the strategy?
a. What could you have done to better prepare yourself?
b. What would you suggest a novice to do to better prepare?
c. What contextual factors may prevent the success of using the strategy?
d. How did the local culture facilitate or hinder the use the strategy?
e. What do you need to know or be able to do before using the strategy?
f. If you could go back, what would you have done differently?
4. Please look at the set of methods contained in the I just sent you, have you
ever used any of these methods?
a. What was your experience with those?

5. If you have never used them, would you be interested in using them? Why yes or
why not?
a. What do you think may enable you to use these methods successfully?
I conducted all the interviews on Skype, except for three interviews done in person.
Before the actual interview, I shared the details of the study and the consent form
explaining the open-licensing process for publishing the transcript.
Before the interview, I presented the participants with two options. With option A, the
participants accepted to have their name associated with the transcript and to publish it
using a creative commons licenses. Before publishing the transcripts, the participants
read the transcripts and modified them as they saw fit. Some of them rephrased sentences
to make sure that the message they wanted to send was properly conveyed, others deleted
sections that they did not feel comfortable to share. I analyzed the final transcript they
shared with me.
With option B, the participants requested to conceal their identity and I
anonymized their transcript to make sure their identity will be properly protected. These
anonymized transcripts will not be published and will be maintained securely in my PC.
All participants except one (Robert) chose option A. However, three participants
(Michael, Andrew, and George) were not able to review the transcripts. After consulting
with them; they decide to chance their choice to option B.
3.5.3 Interview Analysis
I analyzed the transcripts of the interview with the practitioners using an inductive
Thematic Analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). They define TA as a rigorous method
“for identifying, analyzing, and reporting pattern (themes) within data” (p.79), where a

theme “captures something important about the data in relation to the research question,
and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (p. 82).
TA is a flexible method because is not “wedded to any pre-existing theoretical
framework” (p.81) and therefore is compatible with various research paradigms (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). In my analysis, I conducted TA in a constructionist framework because I
“seek[s] to theorize the sociocultural contexts, and the structural conditions, that” (Braun
& Clarke, 2006, p. 85) facilitated community participation in HE projects.
For the analysis, Braun & Clarke (2006) suggest a six-step process to develop
emergent codes and themes: 1) familiarizing yourself with your data, 2) generating codes,
3) searching for themes, 4) reviewing themes, 5) defining and naming themes, and 6)
producing the report. However, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) process appears to be linear,
while my analysis in reality was much more iterative and cyclic. In fact, rather than
following a six-steps process, I followed three major steps: 1) familiarization with data
(just like in Braun and Clarke (2006)), 2) development of codes and themes (which
groups Braun and Clark’s (2006) steps 2 to 5 together), and 3) writing chapter 6 and 7
(which corresponds to Braun and Clark’s (2006) step 6).
Familiarization with data. I read all 14 transcripts and while reading them I
annotated possible codes and themes in 14 memos (one for each transcript). Then, I
printed the memos and looked across them to identify commonalities. This process led
me to divide all transcripts in two major parts. Part A comprised all the text of transcript
with focus on discussion of methods (all the sections of transcripts where the
interviewees commented on the methods I had shared with them). Part B contained all the
remaining text which provided broader discussions related to the practice of HE. Then, I

proceeded with analyzing the two parts of transcripts independently. I started with the
comments on methods and then with the rest of the transcript.
Development of codes and themes. I first focused on analyzing the parts of
transcripts that focused on comments related to the methods I had shared with them. The
analysis of these segments of codes was very straightforward as four codes emerged very
clearly from the first round of coding. Specifically, I created five codes: “Used,”
“Familiar,” “Similar,” “Positives,” and “Negatives.” I coded with the code “Used” every
time that they mentioned that they actually used a method, and coded with the code
“Familiar,” when they stated they were familiar with the method, and “Similar” when
they stated they had used something very similar. I then grouped these two codes in one
major theme named familiarity, which referred to participants’ familiarity with the
methods. I coded with the code “Positives,” every time the participants expressed a
positive opinion regarding the methods, and with the code “Negatives,” every time the
participants expressed a negative opinion. Further analysis of the text coded as “Positives,”
led me to distinguish two types of positive opinions: 1) general appreciation of a method,
and 2) specific benefit of using a method. Further analysis of the text coded as
“Negatives,” led me to identify four main challenges associated using the methods: 1)
practical, 2) communicational, 3) cultural, and 4) ethical. The results of this coding
process are presented in chapter 6.
The analysis of Part B of the transcripts was much more iterative. I first analyzed
the text inductively and generated a large set of codes. Then, using sticky notes I grouped
the codes together and created different clusters. After many of attempts, I obtained three
major themes. The first theme was named “Definitions of Humanitarian Engineering”

and contained all instances in which participant provided a definition or insight related to
the nature of HE practice. The second major theme was “Building Trusted Relationships,”
which it contained three sub-themes: 1) benefits of trust, 2) project partner, and 3) social
interactions. The last theme was named “Asset/Strength Based Approach,” as it referred
to instances where participant mentioned and described the practice of asset based
community development in the context of HE. This theme also contained one subtheme,
“Local expertise,” which referred to instances where the participants talked about
harnessing the expertise of the communities they were working in.
Writing chapter 6 and 7. The last step of my analysis was writing the findings
chapter 6 and 7 which aligned with Braun and Clarke’s (2006) producing the report. As
suggested in their paper, writing the chapter was itself another analysis step I had to the
coded text to select “vivid, compelling extract examples” (Braun & Clarck, 2006, p. 87)
and order them in a way that properly exemplified my claims.

CHAPTER 4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES, METHODS, AND COMPETENCIES FOR
PARTICIPATORY HUMANITARIAN ENGINEERING PROJECTS
This chapter focuses on the results of the content analysis of the 48 journal papers that
were collected through a qualitative systematized review, as explain in chapter 3, section
3.3. All the collected journal papers discussed the importance of community participation
in HE or similar projects. They all recognized that lack of community participation has
led to project failure and therefore community participation and buy-in is a critical and
essential factor of successful HE and similar projects. For instance, in Garfi and Ferrer-
Mati’s (2011) project evaluation framework, “community participation and access” is one
key criterion to evaluate the effectiveness of a project. Moreover, many papers suggest
that involvement of community members in every stage of the projects leads to higher
sense of ownership, which is directly linked with the long-term sustainability of solutions.
All the papers discussed multiple approaches to ensure community participation.
More specifically, the content analysis of the papers revealed five guiding
principles, seven groups of methods, and three very broad competencies that inform and
may lead to meaningful participation of community members in humanitarian and similar
projects. Principles are abstract guidelines that need to be taken into account when doing
HE projects. Methods comprise a variety of tools and techniques that translate the

principles into practice. Competencies are abilities that enable engineers or engineering
students to enact the guiding principles and to use the methods appropriately. In the next
sections, I will report the findings related to these three major themes.
4.1 Guiding Principles
Every one of the 48 journal articles described at least one principle that could guide
engineers to facilitate community participation in HE projects. Specifically, I identified
five guiding principles: 1) collaborating with local partners, 2) harnessing local resources
and expertise, 3) considering ethics, human rights, and social justice, 4) building trusting
and equitable relationships, and 5) creating multi/inter-disciplinary teams. In the
following sections, I will describe each principle in detail.
4.1.1 Collaborating With on-the-Ground Partners
A large group of papers mentioned that collaborating with a partner on the-ground that is
committed to both the community and the project is one of the best ways to make sure
that community members are appropriately involved in the projects. A committed local
partner can “play an integral role in facilitating communication and a common language
and understanding between the parties based on their deeper knowledge of the local
culture” (Chisolm et al., 2014). In her analysis of the winning projects from the first five
MIT IDEAS Competitions (an annual competition that awards prizes to student teams
that have created solutions for underserved communities), Jue (2006) similarly found that
“collaborate with a solid community partner” was one of six factors for the sustainability
of any solution. For instance, she found that “the technology created through the
Innovative Drinking Water Project is still being disseminated by the project’s community
partner, a scientific nongovernmental organization, even though the student team leader

left the country, and Nepal’s political situation prevented new students from coming into
the country” (Jue, 2006, p. 26). Therefore, the committed project partner ensured the
long-term success of the technology even if the student team was not able to go back to
the country where they implemented the solution.
In contrast, Jue (2006) observed that projects that had unstable projects partners
or no partner were not sustainable and quickly ended. For instance, she shared the
example of a student team that developed an automated early warning system that
monitored the river and weather conditions in a small region of Honduras. A reason that
the project was not successful in the long run was that the team collaborated with an
organization that had internal issues. The internal issue of the project partner led to the
resignation of one leader of the organization, who was also the main contact and the
champion for the student team. The person who took the place of their project champion
was not as committed to the project as the pervious leader and the student team lost the
support that was needed to continue the project.
In line with Jue’s (2006) suggestion, I found that the authors of the articles have
worked and/or suggested collaborating with a wide range of partners. For instance, Aslam
et al (2014), Barb and Everett (2014), and Ones (2013) collaborated with Peace Corps
Volunteers, who were located in the communities were the projects were undertaken.
Many papers also cited local and international non-governmental organizations as
prospective partners (NGOs, e.g., Aslam et al, 2013; Bowen & Acciaioli, 2015; Chilsom
et al., 2014; Dodson and Barbach, 2015; Ferrer-Marti, 2010; Harshfield et al., 2009;
Magee et al., 2011; Matson and Wood, 2014; Third et al., 2009). In addition to NGOs,
engineers could collaborate with existing local committees, cooperatives, or governing

bodies (Aslam, 2014; Barb and Everett, 2014; de Chatonay et al., 2012; Heil et al., 2010;
Marsolek et al., 2012), local Universities (Harshfield et al., 2009; Maggon et al., 2010),
or individual community members, such as health workers (Barb and Everett, 2014). The
key is to find local gatekeepers that can provide access to the community, broker
relationships, and support the project while the foreign engineers or other professionals
are not in the country (Mehta and Mehta, 2011; Pearson, 1996; Sianipar et al., 2013).
Sometimes, supporting organizations might be created in addition to the existing
ones. For instance, Ferrer-Mati et al. (2010) facilitated the establishment of a
microenterprise composed by residents of the community to take over operation and
maintenance of the systems that were installed. Similarly, Munoz (2015), with the help of
a local social scientist, encouraged the creation of “circle of friends,” small groups of
local women who got together to embark on small projects, some of which became
microenterprises. The creation of small groups not only ensures that systems can be
maintained, but also build local capacity and interdependency.
4.1.2 Harnessing Local Resources and Expertise
Equally important to collaborating with solid community partners is the principle of
harnessing the existing natural and human resources available in the community. As
Murphy et al. (2009) observe, “a tool made from local materials by local tradesman will
likely be more affordable and sustainable than an imported tool from the developed world”
(p. 160). To reflect this principle, Garfi and Ferrer-Mati’s (2011) decision-making
framework for selecting appropriate technology considers the percentage of local
materials and resources used in developing technologies as a decisive indicator to assess
the potential success and sustainability of a solution. One specific strategy to identify

local resources and materials is that of surveying local stores and vendors (Aslam et al.,
2014; Barb and Everett, 2014; Magoon et al., 2010; Nieusma and Riley, 2010).
Looking beyond materials, the most important resource of a community is its
people. Mattson and Wood (2014) cite Murcott’s (2007) hallmarks of co-design, one of
which being that designers must recognize that “resource-poor individuals have valuable
expertise in surviving in low resource environments and in understanding local materials
and networks” (p. 2). Similarly, McDaniel et al. (2011) observed that the community
where they were working did not have extensive financial capital, but was rich with local
technical experts, such as bricklayers, carpenters, and other specialized construction
workers. It is indeed common that engineers and designers may harness such local
expertise. For instance, de Chastonay et al. (2012) collaborated closely with local brick
makers who “mastered the creation of insulating bricks” (p. 59). Similarly, Hussain and
Sanders (2012) worked with a local sculptor to “develop models of feet in clay” of
prosthetic legs for underserved Cambodian children. To make sure that local expertise
was properly integrated in the project, Ramirez et al. (2010) invited some community
members to be part of the design team. In light of this fact, Nieusma and Riley (2010)
criticize students’ involvement in these kinds of projects because they point out that
engineering students might have little to offer and what they offer might already be
readily available in the country. Yet, regardless of whether students’ involvement is
advised, harnessing local expertise and resources remains a fundamental guideline to any
humanitarian engineering or similar project.

4.1.3 Considering Ethics, and Social Justice
Many papers advise that engineers need to consider issues related to ethics and social
justice. For instance, engineers think about the ethical issues related to doing research
with people in developing countries (Hilton et al., 2014). To make sure that they were
adhering to proper ethical standards related to research, Aslam et al. (2014), de
Chastoney et al. (2012), Harshifield et al. (2009), Magoon et al. (2010), followed
research ethical protocols that got IRB approval. Taking into account ethical issues while
interacting with community members avoid distrust (Hilton et al., 2014).
Amadei et al., (2009) states that engineers are always “bound to a professional
code of ethics with regard to behavior, accountability, quality control and quality
assurance, and delivery of projects” (p. 1094). However, professional codes of ethics
provide useful, but limited ethical guidelines (Leydens and Lucena, 2014). To be able to
fully and effectively collaborate with community members, engineers need to consider
social justice issues (Vandersteen et al., 2009), such as addressing the effect of root
causes and structural conditions of a problem (Bernadei et al., 2009; Leydens and Lucena,
2014; Nieusma and Riley, 2010; Pearson, 1996), mitigating power differentials between
engineers and community members (Hilton et al., 2014; Leydens and Lucena, 2014;
Murphy et al., 2009; Nieusma and Riley, 2010), increasing opportunities, mitigating
imposed risks and harms, and enhancing human capabilities (Leydens and Lucena, 2014),
and respecting human-rights (Bayars et al., 2009; Bowen and Acciaioli, 2015).
Most important to the social justice literature is the idea of power and how power
differentials might prevent real collaborations between engineers and community
members. There is therefore a need to shift power relations, which could be obtained by

positioning students (and engineers more broadly) in roles of learners before actually
attempting to solve any existing problem (Nieusma and Riley, 2010). Another way to
break traditional power relationships would be to follow a rights-based approach, which
“recognizes individuals as actors in their own development instead of viewing them as
victims” (Bayars et al., 2009, p. 2714). In sum, in order to meaningfully collaborate with
community members, engineers need to follow approved research protocols, follow
ethical guidelines, and take measures to shift power dynamics to a more equal level.
4.1.4 Building Trusting Relationships
This fifth principle is directly related to the previous one because “acting ethically at all
times and avoiding decisions that lead to distrust and suspicion is another factor that leads
to trust-based relationship building” (Hilton et al., 2014, p. X). However, ethical
decision-making is not the only factor that contributes to trust. Maintaining equitable
relationships that ensure an appropriate distribution of contributions of money, energy,
and time among all people involved in a project is often associated with higher levels of
trust (Aslam et al., 2014; Hilton et al., 2014; Mehta and Mehta, 2011). Other factors that
foster trusted relationships include open communication, respect, reciprocity, and
transparency (Aslam et al., 2014; Aslam et al., 2013; Chisolm et al., 2014; de Chastonay
et al., 2012). Trust appears to be directly related to the time that engineers spend with
community members, although it is not clear what is the minimum time necessary and
what kind of activities may best foster trust (Garff et al., 2013; Hilton et al., 2014;
Leydens and Lucena, 2014; Munoz, 2014). While building trust seems to be a very
important principle for successful HE projects, the literature I retrieved is limited on this
topic and further research is needed.

4.1.5 Creating Diverse and Multidisciplinary Teams
Finally, a small set of papers reports on the importance of having diverse team members
that can contribute to both the technical, and, especially, the social aspects of HE and
similar projects (Jue, 2011; Leydens and Lucena, 2009). This is because the nature of the
problems addressed in these projects “requires knowledge, skills, and sensitivity in social,
political, technical, ecological, and economic factors” (Mattson and Wood, 2014, p. X).
Teams should include members from multiple disciplines, including “sociologists,
economists, anthropologists, public health experts” (Amadei et al., 2010, p. 6). For
instance, in Dodson and Barbach’s (2015) fogwater harvesting project, social scientists
played a key role in conducting robust household surveys of water usage, while Magoon
et al. (2010) relied on a local anthropologist to involve the community in their project. In
sum, engineers and engineering students are strongly advised to deploy “models that
successfully blur disciplinary boundaries and de-center engineering as the key expertise
in addressing development problems” (Nieusma and Riley, 2010, p. 57).
4.2 Methods to Involve Communities
The five principles described above provide guidance on what engineers should take into
account to facilitate community participation in HE and similar projects. However, in
order to meet these principles in practice, engineers need to deploy a wide range of
specific methods. Among the 48 papers I collected, 38 papers discussed sets of methods
to facilitate community participation. I organized these methods in seven groups: 1)
social science research methods, 2) design tools, 3) participatory methods, 4) evaluation
and decision-making tools, and 5) stakeholder identification methods, 6) self-awareness
tools, and 7) miscellaneous. In this section, I provide a general overview of the methods

that were discussed, while in the next chapter (Chapter 6) I will provide a more detailed
analysis of these methods, including the classification system I developed.
4.2.1 Social Science Research Methods
The most common methods proposed and used in the 48 papers are research methods
derived from the social sciences. A great example of how social science research methods
can inform design of products for underserved communities comes from Winter (2006).
The goal of Winter’s (2006) study was to assess the “current state of wheelchair
technology in Tanzania and the factors that prevent Tanzania’s disabled from utilizing
wheelchair technology” (p. 60). To achieve his goal, Winter (2006) conducted 99
interviews with users, manufactures, and advocacy groups. Thus, he identified a set of
issues that later informed his final design. In other projects, a wider range of social
science research methods were used. For instance, Ferrer-Martí et al (2010) describe the
main aspects of designing, implementing, and managing a small-scale electricity
generation system that harnessed wind energy in a small community in Peru. One
important part of their process was a socioeconomic analysis focused on understanding
“the following characteristics of the families [of the community]: social, economic,
energy consumption and demand, organizational level, identification of individual and
group capabilities” (p. 280). To achieve this goal they used a wide range of social science
research methods, including “socioeconomic surveys of each family, interviews with
local authorities and representative residents and a focus group with the local
organizations and representatives” (p. 280).
Overall, the social science research methods that were used or suggested in the 48
papers included interviews (Aslam et al., 2013; Ferrer-Mati et al., 2010; Garfi and Ferrer-

Mati, 2011; Magee et al., 2011; Magoon et al., 2010; Marsolek et al., 2012; Mehta and
Mehta, 2014; Ramirez et al., 2010; Tendick-Matesanz et al., 2012; Third et al., 2009),
focus groups (Chisolm et al., 2014; Ferrer-Mati et al., 2010; Heil et al., 2010; Mehta and
Mehta, 2011), surveys (Barb and Everett, 2011; Ferrer-Mati et al., 2010; Harshfield et al.,
2009; Heil et al., 2010; Magee et al., 2011; Mattson and Wood, 2014; Ogunyoku et al.,
2011; Ruth et al., 2013), and observations (Garff et al., 2013; Magoon et al., 2010).
However, when the authors of the papers discussed the social science research methods
they used, none of them cited sources that informed how they created their research
protocols, which suggests that engineers might not be doing due diligence when
deploying such methods.
4.2.2 Design Tools
A smaller set of papers used or suggested to use design tools, which themselves include
social science research methods, such as interviews and focus groups. Dodson and
Barbach (2015), for instance, mention “user-centered design techniques” (p. 191), but did
not cite any specific source. In contrast, Leydens and Lucena cite IDEO’s human-
centered design cards as a “useful vehicle for engendering empathy” (p. 16). Hussain and
Sanders (2012) utilized generative design tools to develop prosthetic legs for
marginalized children. They explain that generative design tools are “a category of
participatory design methods characterized by the application of materials that have been
designed to facilitate non-designers in articulating their needs and dreams in the form of
design proposals” (p. 44). Specifically, there are three types of generative design tools: 1)
making tools like collages, maps, models, and mock-ups, 2) telling tools like diaries, logs,
and sorting cards, and 3) enacting tools like role-playing and improvisation. Specifically,

Hussain et al., (2012) used making tools to allow children to draw prototypes of
prosthetic legs. The last example of design tools is the Value-Sensitive Design (VSD)
methodology that Walton and Derenzi (2009) used to develop a health-care information
system for community health workers in East Africa. VSD “enables system designers to
comprehensively address values throughout the design process” (p. 347). Specifically, it
requires designers to use social science research methods to understand what their direct
users’ value, and then integrate the identified values in every aspect of the design process.
4.2.3 Participatory Methods
Another set of papers mentioned methods that draw upon participatory methodologies,
such as participatory action research (Aslam et al., 2013; Bernadei et al., 2009; de
Chastoney et al., 2012; Magoon et al., 2010; Ramirez et al., 2010; White, 1997),
community based participatory research (Tendick-Matesanz et al., 2015), and theater of
the oppressed (Ones, 2013). For example, Amadei et al. (2009) suggest that engineers
could employ participatory methods that “include Rapid Rural Appraisal, Rapid
Assessment Methods, Behavior Change Communication, and others” (p. 1097) and cite
Beebe’s (2011) manual for rapid assessment methods. Ramirez et al. (2010) mentioned
an approach named “Participatory Rural Diagnostic.” This approach include methods
such as “talking maps” which “provided visual information on the conformation of the
territory and the arrangement of items such as neighborhoods, streets, hospitals, farms,
and wells” (p. 53). However, they fail to cite the direct source for those methods.
White (1997) proposes to use “Participatory Appraisal of Needs and the
Development of Action” (PANDA) which combines Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
and Issue Structuring Methods (ISMs). PRA is a process that includes participatory

action research methods focused on understanding the sociocultural context of
community through the active participation of the community in both data collection and
analysis. White (1997) mentions transects, wealth ranking, analysis of difference, and
ranking among some of the methods used in PRA, but does not provide detailed
description nor cite sources on where to find more information related to these methods.
ISMs instead are highly structured techniques that provide guidance in making decisions
and create action plans. White (1997) mentions comparative advantage, commitment
packages, and action methods as part of the ISM family, but, as in the case of PRA
methods, does not include detailed description of the methods nor cite original sources.
Aslam et al. (2013) used photovoice, a specific participatory action research
method, which was developed by Wang and Burris (1997) in the context of health care
provision. Specifically, Aslam et al. (2013) gave cameras to thirteen community members,
who had five days to take pictures of “features that were important to certain individuals,
were in need of improvement, or were significant” (p. 39) to the them and the community.
The photovoice participants then presented their pictures to other participants and other
community members. The whole process allowed the participants to identify important
issues that affected the community and its members. As a last example of participatory
methods, it is worth mentioning the non-traditional (for engineering) approach used by
Ones (2013). Building upon tradition such as August Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed,
Ones (2013) used community-performed skits with talk-back sessions to instigate
community discussions about fuel efficient stoves. This approach helped provide vocal
empowerment to women, who were then able to participate more meaningfully to
discussions regarding cooking and stoves.

4.2.4 Stakeholder Identification Methods
To make sure that a wide range of stakeholders are involved in a project, engineers need
to identify all possible stakeholders of a projects. A small set of papers discussed
approaches to achieve this goal. To identify all stakeholders of a development project and
understand how they interact with each other, Bowen and Acciaioli (2015) proposed to
use an arena model that is built on collective action theory. Their arena model recognizes
five types of stakeholders: “providers of resources for the change; planners of the change;
implementers of the change; subjects of the change; and beneficiaries of the change” (p.
279). In contrast, in Mehta and Metha’s (2011) Stakeholder Analysis method,
stakeholders are grouped in 1) primary stakeholders, i.e., “those directly affected” (p. 37),
2) secondary stakeholders who “include ‘intermediaries’ that are indirectly affected” (p.
37), 3) Tertiary stakeholders like funding agencies, and 4) marginalized stakeholders, that
“have traditionally not been involved in the domain of the project, generally due to
various social and economic reasons” (p. 37).
Following a different logic, Leydens and Lucena (2014) proposed to use a
rainbow diagram, a social analysis system that maps “the various actors according to who
has influence (most, moderate, and least) and who could be (most, moderately, or least)
affected” by any HE project (p. 11). Another way to characterize stakeholders is to look
at three indicators: Place, People, and Prospect (Sianipar et al., 2013). Place is defined as
“the bond a person has in him/herself to the place where he/she lives” (p. 3392). People
means that “a person has a good opinion on what people do locally, and has a clear
understanding of local people’s capabilities on managing existing conditions” (p.3392).
And finally, the Prospect indicator “shows a person’s dedication to future development of

local area” (p. 3393). While identifying and characterizing stakeholders is one of the first
steps to allow community participation, only a few papers explicitly discussed those
methods, although (as I will discuss in chapter 5) many design tools and participatory
methods include some form of stakeholders’ identification processes.
4.2.5 Evaluation and Decision-Making Tools
While the groups of methods reported in the above subsections (4.2.1-4) focus on
learning about the problem, the context, and other aspects of a project, there was a
smaller set of papers that discussed methods to make decisions. Avrai and Post (2011)
developed a risk management framework “for involving affected stakeholders in
decisions about POU water treatment systems” (p. 69). Similarly, Garfi and Ferrer-Marti
(2011) developed a comprehensive Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) process to evaluate
water and sanitation projects. Specifically, the MCA is based on four groups of criteria:
“technical (e.g. local resources use, appropriate management); social (e.g. local
community participation, overcoming discrimination of conflict); economic (e.g. low cost,
employment of local staff) and environmental criteria (e.g. atmospheric emissions, water
pollution)” (p. 83). A similar framework was developed by McConville and Mihelcic
(2007). Their approach evaluates solutions based on five sustainability factors, i.e., “1)
sociocultural respect, 2) community participation, 3) political cohesion, 4) economic
sustainability, 5) environmental sustainability.” (McConville & Mihelcic, 2007, p. 937).
In contrast, Leydens and Lucena (2014) use a different approach to evaluate
possible designs. They developed the Design Evaluation Matrix on Human Capabilities
that ranks possible designs based on their potential to enhance Nussbaum’s positive
freedoms (Nussbaum, 2007). Specifically, Nussbaum’s positive freedoms are

conceptualized as 10 human capabilities: “1) life (of a normal length), 2) bodily health, 3)
bodily integrity (like freedom from assault, etc.), 4) senses, imagination, and thought, 5)
emotions, 6) practical reason, 7) affiliation, 8) other species (respect for nature in general),
9) play, and 10) control over one’s political environment” (Leydens and Lucena, 2014, p.
17). Community members can use these capabilities at multiple project phases, from
describing the outcomes of their dreams and aspirations to evaluating designs and the
long-term effectiveness of the project. Finally, both Mattson and Wood (2014) and Mehta
and Mehta (2011) suggest that engineers should use failure analysis methods to assess the
potential of failure of the systems. The above frameworks and methods are some the
many methods that were suggested for making-decision and evaluate solutions.
4.2.6 Self-Awareness Tools
The tools so far focused on enabling engineers to gather and frame information, but also
to make decisions. Two papers (Hinton et al., 2014; Leydens and Lucena, 2014), however,
proposed that in addition to discovering the community and its context, engineers should
also employ tools for self-discovery that would allow raising awareness related of their
own biases and assumptions. For instance, Hinton et al. (2014) suggest that engineers
could undertake reflective exercises that would allow them to understand “their own style
of action and how it differs from the actions of their partners and stakeholders” (p. 6).
Similarly, to promote awareness of race, gender, social class, and other privileges,
engineers could do The Privilege Walk and Privilege by Numbers activities before
beginning interactions with their project partners (Leydens and Lucena, 2014). The

collected literature was quite limited on pointing out specific self-awareness tools.
However, some design toolkits that I retrieved through snowballing (see section 3.4),
include self-awareness tools that I report in Chapter 5.
4.2.7 Miscellaneous
Finally, a set of papers discuss an array of methods that did not belong exactly in any of
the six categories mentioned above. To begin, a group of papers discussed leveraging
community meetings during which engineers had discussions about a wide range of
topics with community members and leaders (Aslam et al., 2014; Barb and Everett, 2014;
de Chastonay et al., 2012; Harshfield et al., 2009; Magoon et al., 2010; Marsolek et al.,
2007; McDaniel et al., 201; Ogunyouku et al., 2011; Pvalik et al., 2013; Tendick-
Matesanz et al., 2015). However, none of the papers really explained what specific
activities were undertaken to open the ground for meaningful discussions and sharing of
information and ideas. Magoon et al. (2010) came up their own strategy to share
information and receive feedback from the community. They installed a message boards
at the two village stores, where they “posted our current and planned activities and
encouraged questions or comments to be written anonymously on the supplied writing
pad” (p. 51). Then, they would read comments and opinions the community members
posted and responded to these directly on the message board.
Other papers preferred to rely on existing manuals of methods. Chisolm et al.
(2014) used “hygiene evaluation procedures” (Almedom et al., 1997) that are typically
deployed by Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)-focused organizations to “solicit
behaviors and opinions from community members without directing questioning” (p.
533). Instead, Garff et al. (2013) suggested integrating social science research methods

with Social Impact Assessment frameworks (such as Burdge, 2004), “which emphasizes
obtaining critical data about the users and their community context in order to assess the
effectiveness of solutions developed” (p. 138).
4.3 Competencies
The third major theme that emerged from my analysis relates to competencies that
engineers need to have in order to facilitate community participation in engineering
projects. This theme was, however, underrepresented as compared to guiding principles
and methods. In fact only 18 papers out of the 48 collected, and only one fully unpacked
a specific competency (i.e., contextual listening in Leydens and Lucena (2009)). I
grouped the competencies in three very broad categories: 1) mindsets, beliefs, attitudes,
and self-awareness, 2) cross-cultural skills, and 3) communication and listening skills.
4.3.1 Mindsets, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Self-Awareness
Of the papers that mentioned competencies, one set of papers discussed mindsets and
attitudes that can allow for meaningful interaction with community members. Aslam et al.
(2014) and Vandersteen et al (2009) state that a humble mindset and a sense of humility
may lead engineers to embrace more cooperative-oriented approaches to HE. Bayars et al.
(2009), Hussain et al. (2012), and Schneider et al. (2008) recognize that the beliefs that
engineers hold about underserved communities can hinder or enhance community
participation. For instance, Bayars et al. (2009) explain that by taking a rights-based
approach, engineers will be able to see underserved communities as “actors in their own
development instead of viewing them as victims” (p. 2714) who are waiting to be saved
by foreigners. In order to develop such a belief about others, engineers also need to
acquire high degrees of empathy (Hilton et al., 2014; Leydens and Lucena, 2014; Mattson

and Wood, 2014). Specifically, Schneider et al. (2009) suggest that empathy is “crucial to
re-envisioning a community not exclusively through the lens of what it lacks, but through
its multiple social, cultural, and other assets and capacities, and most of all its own
dreams and aspirations” (p. 47).
Competencies such as having a humble mindset, humility, beliefs regarding other
people, and empathy are meta-cognitive traits that focus on others. However, a few
papers also discuss how a focus on self may also further promote better interactions and
especially mitigate power differentials. In order to do so, engineers need to develop a
deep awareness of their own preunderstandings, assumptions, and unconscious biases that
their own background may have shaped (Aslam et al., 2014; Hilton et al., 2014; Hussain
et al., 2012; Leydens and Lucena, 2014; Niesuma and Riley, 2010; Pearson, 1996). White
(1997) calls this trait “critical self-awareness,” which requires that engineers examine
their behavior and offset their biases.
4.3.2 Ability to Navigate Cross-Cultural Differences
One key principle of appropriate technology is that a technology must be socially and
culturally appropriate for the community where the solution is implemented (Hussain and
Sanders, 2010; Murphy et al., 2009; Ogunyoku et al., 2011). This means that engineers
need to take into consideration the “socio-cultural, political, economic, and other systems
that inform and are informed by community identity, values, and aspirations” (Schneider
et al., 2008, p. 313). Yet, the cultural and contextual differences do not only influence the
technology itself, but also the interactions between the community members and the
engineers (Bowen and Acciaioli, 2015; Heil et al., 2010; McConville and Mihelcic, 2007;
Pearson, 1996). Differences in culture, language, and values can affect how engineers can

collaborate with community members (Avrai et al., 2012; Chisolm et al., 2014;
Harshfield et al., 2009; Hussain and Sanders, 2012). For instance, in a project focused on
developing prosthetic legs for disadvantaged Cambodian children, Hussain et al. (2012)
had to change the way they asked questions to children due to local Buddhist beliefs:
“[A]ccording to Buddhist beliefs, one should never show ingratitude.
Consequently, we had to rephrase some questions so that the children
would not be worried about criticising. Instead of asking the children what
they did not like about the prototypes, for example, we asked them what
they really liked about them and what they liked a little less” (p. 99)
Therefore, engineers need to be able to understand how the local beliefs and values may
shape interactions and adapt their behavior to navigate such differences (Garff et al.,
2013); otherwise it could lead to misunderstandings, and harmful consequences.
4.3.3 Communication and Listening Skills
Finally, communication and listening skills were explicitly cited by a few authors
(Leydens and Lucena, 2009, 2014; Nieusma and Riley, 2010; White, 1997). Most
importantly, Leydens and Lucena (2009) position contextual listening as a key ability for
humanitarian engineers. To understand contextual listening is important to distinguish it
from basic listening, which “refers to hearing or paying attention to the verbal and
nonverbal messages of any speaker” and “is framed as a dyadic process of speaking
(output) and hearing/receiving information (input)” (Lucena et al., 2010 p. 124). On the
other hand, contextual listening is complex, multidimensional, and integrated process
where “information such as cost, weight, technical specs, desirable functions, and
timeline acquires meaning only when the context of the person(s) making the

requirements (their history, political agendas, desires, forms of knowledge, etc.) is fully
understood” ((Lucena et al., 2010, p. 125). Contextual listening is so important for HE
that Leydens and Lucena (2014) include it as a criterion to achieve social justice in HE.
4.4 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I reported on the results of the content analysis that I conducted on the 48
papers that I retrieved using a qualitative systematized review. My analysis resulted in
three major themes: guiding principles, methods, and competencies. Guiding principles
and methods were widely discussed in the collected literature, which allowed me to
develop sub-themes within each of them. By contrast, competencies were not discussed
very often in the collected papers. To note, with this analysis it was not possible to
understand the connections between guiding principles, methods, and competencies,
although a few links could be proposed. For instance, all the competencies would allow
engineers to properly use all the cited methods, like in the quoted example from Hussain
et al. (2012) in which they changed their interview protocol to align with the local
Buddhist beliefs. Creating multidisciplinary teams (principle 4.1.5) would allow a
broader range of methods to be deployed during a project, as member of different
disciplines would contribute with their own processes for learning and making decisions.
The stakeholder identification methods can enable engineers to collaborate with a wide
range of local and international stakeholders (principle 4.1.1). There is also a direct link
between self-awareness tools (4.2.6) and the need to develop critical self-awareness
(4.3.1), which in turn can promote egalitarian relationships (4.1.3). Furthermore,
developing the proper mindsets and beliefs, and an ability of critical self-examination
would allow engineers to appreciate and harness local expertise (principle 4.1.2), meet

ethical, human rights, and social justice criteria (principle 4.1.3), as well as build trusted
relationships with community members (principle 4.1.4).
Finally, through the content analysis, I identified seven groups of methods. This
grouping provides only a general view of the methods that have been used and proposed
in the HE and related literature, but it does not identify key characteristics that enable to
compare and contrast the methods across all the groups. To really understand how these
methods could differ, I had to further analyze the single methods to identify dimensions
that cut across all the methods. The result of this analysis is a two-dimensional
classification system that is presented in the next chapter. In chapter 7, I report findings
related to my interviews with the practitioners, which overlap with and expand on some
of the principles reported in this chapter, including harnessing local expertise (4.1.2),
building trusting relationships (4.1.4), and creating multidisciplinary teams (4.1.5).

CHAPTER 5. PASSIVE, CONSULTATIVE, AND CO-CONSTRUCTIVE METHODS
In chapter 4 I reported the results from analyzing the papers that I collected through a
qualitative systematized review. The analysis of the papers led me to create six families
of methods: 1) social science research methods (4.2.1), 2) design tools, (4.2.2), 3)
participatory methods (4.2.3), 4) stakeholder identification methods (4.2.4), 5) self-
awareness tools (4.2.5), and 6) miscellaneous (4.2.6). However, this grouping does not
enable comparison and contrast of the methods based on characteristics such as their
purpose, the level of community involvement, and others. Therefore, to further
understand the methods and better answer my first set of research questions, I further
analyzed the methods reported and cited in the papers collected through the systematized
review.
The iterative and creative analysis and classification process described in chapter
3, section 3.4.2, led me to develop a classification system that can be represented as a 3×3
matrix, reported in Figure 5.1. The columns are organized around three levels of
community participation, i.e., 1) passive, 2) consultative, and 3) co-constructive. Passive
methods were the most common, being 39% (25 out of 64) of all the methods collected.
Co-constructive methods were the second most common, comprising 36% (23 of 64)

methods collected and the consultative methods were the least common with 16 out of 64
(25%). Notably, some consultative methods, as explained later in this chapter, can serve
multiple goals. Thus even if they are smaller in number, they provide a large range of
usage. The rows are organized around three major project phase: 1) problem definition
and planning, 2) information gathering, and 3) solution development. The information-
gathering phase is the one that contains the most methods (32, 50%) and is further
divided in five function groups. The problem framing and planning phase is the second
largest and includes 17 (27%) methods. This phase is further divided in four function
groups. The solution development phase contains the remaining 15 methods (23%) and is
divided in two function groups. Figure 5.1 reports a visualization two-dimensional
framework and for each row the number of methods classified under each column.
In the following pages, I first provide an overview of the level of community
participation and explain the differences between the three levels (section 5.1). Then, I
describe in more detail each project phase and the associated function groups (section
5.2). I finish by discussing different approaches to think about using methods and I relate
them back to some of the findings reported in chapter 4.

100

5.1 Dimension 1: Levels of Community Participation
The participation levels were created by combining three different aspects of
participation, as illustrated in figure 5.2. The first aspect is who participates while the
other aspects two describe the specific actions and roles taken by the participants. In
terms of participants, the analyzed methods provide only two scenarios: 1) the
participants include only the engineers, and 2) the participants include engineers and
local community members (shorten to locals from here on). To note is that there were no
Figure 5.1. Two-Dimensional Use-Inspired Framework to Classify Methods

101

methods in which the only participants were community members. This reflects the fact
that this study focus on projects, like in service-learning courses, in which engineers
cannot be taken out of the equation. Based on this characteristic, co-constructive and
consultative methods distinguish themselves from passive methods because they include
locals. However, the distinction between consultative and co-constructive is based on
what engineers and locals do when the methods are used. In consultative methods,
engineers elicit information from locals who simply provide the information requested
which is then interpreted by the engineers. In co-constructive methods the locals co-
construct an artifact or a piece of knowledge based on their own understanding and
guided by the engineers, who function as facilitators in the process. Specific examples to
illustrate these differences are provided in the following sub-sections.

Figure 5.2. Levels of Community Participation

102

5.2 Dimension 2: Project Phase
While the columns organize methods based on levels of community participation, the
rows are organized around three major project phases, i.e., 1) problem framing and
planning, 2) context-related information gathering, and 3) solution development. While I
ordered the project phases in a linear, sequential fashion, this does not mean that
engineers should necessarily follow this specific order, because the reality is that projects
are iterative and cyclic. Within each project phase, the methods are grouped together
based on their specific goal, as illustrated in figure 5.1. For example, within the Problem
Framing and Planning phase, there are four function-groups based on four distinct, but
related objectives a) to understanding a problem, b) to formulate goals or objectives, c) to
rank goals or objectives, and d) to plan a project. In the sub-sections below, I report
passive, consultative, and co-constructive methods belonging to each project phase and
specific goal and explain how they fit in each category.
5.2.1 Problem Framing and Planning Methods
This first group of methods comprises 17 (27%) of methods that can enable engineers to
identify community problems and project objectives. These methods are grouped based
on four distinct, but related functions: 1) to understand a problem, 2) to formulate project
objectives, 3) to rank and select goals and objectives, and 4) plan a project in order to
solve a problem and/or achieve an objective. As reported in table 5.1, the Problem
Framing and Planning methods I analyzed are mostly co-constructive, with only 1
consultative method, and 6 passive methods. In the sub-sections below, I describe,
compare, and contrast passive, consultative, and co-constructive methods within each of
the three function groups.

103

Table 5.1. Problem Framing and Planning Methods
Passive Consultative Co-constructive
To
understand
a problem
Inspiration in new
place
Frame the
challenge
Gaps and conflicts
Causal dynamics
Force field
Problem tree
Timeline
To
formulate
objectives
or goals
Back-it-Out 0 Ideal Scenario Option domain
To rank
objectives 0 0
Problem Ranking Matrix
Competing goals
Priority Ranking
To plan a
project
Order and Chaos
Tools Matrix 0
The community action
plan
5.2.1.1 Methods to understand a problem
The first subset of methods has the common function to enable formulating and defining
problems to be addressed in projects. In this subset, there are two passive methods,
“Frame the design challenge” and “Inspiration in new Places” by IDEO (2014), that help
designers to respectively scaffold a design challenge and get a fresh perspective on a
problem. Chevalier and Buckles (2008) provide a consultative method named “Gaps and
Conflicts.” With this technique, engineers can consult community members to understand
the nature of the problem to be addressed in the project. Specifically, it helps understand
if the problem at hand is “mostly about gaps or conflicts in power, interests (gains and
losses), moral values, or information and communication” (p. 133).
The four co-constructive methods in this sub-set are all from Chevalier and
Buckles’s (2008) field guide. With the “Timeline” method, community members co-

104

construct a timeline to visualize how they believe a problem originated and evolved over
time. With “Problem Tree,” community members create together a tree that connects first
and second-level causes and effects of a problem. The “Causal Dynamics” method
enables community members to identify how the causes of a problem interact with each
other. Lastly, with the “Force Field” method, community members can distinguish forces
that cause a problem and those that counter attack it. All of these methods are executed
during a workshop, during which facilitators (e.g., engineers) provide directions and
instructions and the community members create the artifact (a timeline, a problem tree…)
associated with each method.
5.2.1.2 Methods to Formulate Objectives or Goals
In conjunction with or as an alternative to formulate problems, some methods focus on
developing objectives or goals. The IDEO’s method “Back it Out” (a passive method)
transform the challenge identified with the “Frame the challenge” method into possible
objectives and areas of opportunities. Chevalier and Buckles’s (2008) “Option Domain”
and “Ideal Scenario” are co-constructive methods in which community members develop
unranked lists of objectives.
5.2.1.3 Methods to Rank Problems or Objectives
In many cases, in one community there might be a set of problems to address. Thus, it
becomes necessary to rank problems and objectives to decide with should be tackled first.
The three co-constructive methods that constitute this sub-set all have in common the
goal of ranking problems or objectives. The “Problem Ranking Matrix” (Freudenberger,
2008) is an exercise in which the community members with the facilitation of the
engineers construct a matrix to rank selected problems. The rows of the matrix are

105

problems while the columns are criteria that the community members selected in order to
prioritize the problems. Similarly, “Competing Goals” by Chevalier and Buckles (2008)
and “Priority Ranking” by PeaceCorps (2005) are other two co-constructive methods that
engineers can use in collaboration with community members to rank objectives.
5.2.1.4 Methods to Plan a Project
Once problems have been defined and/or objectives have been selected, there is need to
plan the next activities for a project. This fourth and last set of Problem Framing and
Planning methods comprises techniques that allow planning activities for the
accomplishment of the project. The three passive planning methods are “A.R.T.” and
“Order and Chaos” by Chevalier and Buckles (2008) and the “Tool Matrix” by
Freudenberger (2008). The “A.R.T” (Action-Research-Training) allows engineers to
evaluate what actions and how much research and training are needed to achieve project
objectives and to balance these three aspects. Instead, the “Order and Chaos” method
helps estimate the chances to achieve a project goal by using a scale from 0 to 10. The
third passive method is the “Tool Matrix” that allows matching types of information
needed to achieve a goal with tools that could be used to obtain these type of information.
This tool is particularly useful to select methods described in other sections, such as the
methods described in section 5.2.
In this group of methods, there was only one co-constructive method and no
consultative methods. The co-constructive method is “Community Action Plan” by
Freudenberger (2008). This method allows the community members to decide project
activities and responsibilities with the support of the engineers and/or external
stakeholders. Thus, the community creates a matrix listing activities and responsibilities

106

that would be displayed in a place where all the community would be able to see. The
role of the engineers is to facilitate the meeting in which the community members
construct their project plan.
5.2.2 Information Gathering Methods
This second group of methods comprises 32 (50%) of methods that can enable engineers
to gather information about the people and the context of a community. These methods
are grouped based on five distinct, but related functions: 1) to foster-self-awareness, 2)
multipurpose data collecting and analyzing, 3) to understand socio-cultural, political, and
economic aspects of a community, 4) to identify and characterize stakeholders of a
project, and 5) to map a community. To note is that the first function-group (i.e., methods
that foster self-awareness) are not information gathering methods per se, but rather they
enable engineers to gather information and make decisions more accurately.
As reported in table 5.2, these methods are overall almost equally distributed
among the three participation levels. Consultative are the most common with 13 methods
out of 32. Then co-constructive and consultative have almost the same number of
methods: 10 and 9 respectively. In the sub-sections below, I describe and contrast
passive, consultative, and co-constructive methods within each function group.

107

Table 5.2. Information Gathering Methods
Passive Consultative Co-constructive
To foster self-
awareness
Beginners’ mind
Observe vs
interpret
Privilege walk
Privilege by
numbers
0 0
Multipurpose
Secondary research
Diagram
Create framework
Find Themes
Interviews
Focus groups
Questionnaires
Comparing and
sorting objects
Observations
Message board
Theater
Photovoice
To understand
socio-cultural,
political, and
economic
context
0 Daily Activities
Historyline
Wealth Ranking
Calendars
Self-Documentation
To identify and
characterize
stakeholders
Arena model
Social analysis CLIP
V.I.P
Value Sensitive
Investigation
Gender roles/task
analysis
Role dynamics
Social domain
Social network
mapping
To map the
community 0 Transect walk Participatory mapping
5.2.2.1 Methods to foster self-awareness
The four self-awareness tools came from two sources: the IDEO toolkit (IDEO, 2014)
and the engineering and social justice framework of Leydens and Lucena (2014). The
IDEO “Beginner’s mind” and “Observe vs Interpret” methods are simple exercises that
allow engineers to “develop an unbiased understanding of people’s behavior and
motivations.” (IDEO, 2014). For instance, in the “Observe vs Interpret” exercise,
engineers look at a photo and train themselves to distinguish an observation from an

108

interpretation, where an observation is focused on a thick, factual description of what is
represented in the photo, while an interpretation seeks to give meaning to the photo that
may or may not be accurate.
While IDEO’s methods focused on designers’ preunderstandings and biases,
Leydens and Lucena (2014) propose exercises with a related, but slightly different goal
from IDEO, namely, to foster awareness of engineers’ “own privilege and their
relationships to existing power structures” (p. 13). They propose two similar exercises: 1)
the “Privilege Walk” that promotes awareness of race and gender privilege, and 2)
“Privilege by the Numbers”, which focuses on privileges related to cisgender, gender,
nationality, religion, class, race, ability, and sexuality. The enhanced self-awareness
gained through these exercises can in turn “render more visible the perspectives of those
who are in positions of power (dis)advantage” (p. 114), which is the same goal of the two
IDEO methods described earlier. Therefore, these four methods would enable engineers
to use the other methods described in the following sections in a more effective and
appropriate way.
5.2.2.2 Multipurpose Methods
The second subset of methods for understanding people and context comprises flexible
methods that can be adapted to learn about a variety of aspects regarding the people of a
community and the context of a project. The four passive and the six consultative
methods can be divided in data collection and data analysis methods and are the typical
social science research methods. There was only own passive data collection methods;
secondary research (Beebe, 2001; IDEO, 2014), which enables engineers to learn about a
variety of topics related to the project though secondary sources of data (publications,

109

websites, and so on). All the six consultative methods enable the collection of a variety of
information from community members and include semi-structured interviews (Almedom
et al., 1997; Beebe, 2001; Freudenberger, 2008; IDEO, 2014; PeaceCorps, 2005), focus
groups (Beebe, 2001; IDEO, 2014), questionnaires and surveys (Beebe, 2011),
participant observations (Almedom et al., 1997; Beebe, 2001; IDEO, 2014), and object
sorting exercises (Beebe, 2001). To note that IDEO (2014) also include context-specific
interview strategy for gathering information on farming and health issues. These context-
specific interview strategies were lumped together under “semi-structured interview,” but
they are worth highlighting to exemplify the adaptability of the aforementioned
consultative methods.
The multipurpose methods mentioned so far enable the collection a variety of data,
which then needs to be analyzed by the engineers. Both Beebe (2001) and IDEO (2014)
suggest using qualitative coding and thematic analysis strategies. IDEO (2014) also adds
two other methods “Create Frameworks” and “Diagrams,” which, as their names suggest,
provide instructions to create frameworks and diagrams based on the analysis of the
collected data.
The last two multipurpose methods are co-constructive methods: photovoice
(Aslam et al., 2013; Wang and Burris, 1997) and interactive theater (Ones, 2013).
Photovoice is a technique in which community members take pictures of various aspects
of their community and then construct and present a story about their community. This
way the community members are enabled and empowered to represent their community
through their own eyes. Ones (2013) instead used a modified version of August Boal’s
Theatre of the Oppressed to give voice to women regarding their cooking habits and

110

preferences. The community members organize an interactive skit in which foreigners
also participate. This method can easily be adapted to investigate any issue in a
community and to give voice to groups that usually do not hold decision-making power.
5.2.2.3 Methods to Understand Socio-Cultural, Political, and Economic Context
This third sub-set of methods enable gathering insights on socio-cultural, political, and
economical aspects of a community and comprises one consultative method and five co-
constructive methods. The consultative methods is Peace Corps’ (2005) that instructs
volunteers to asks community members about their daily activity in order to create a
timeline of community members’ typical day and labor demand. A similar method is
IDEO’s (2014) co-construcitve “Self-Documentation” approach, in which community
members record their daily activities in a journal and then present this information to the
designers. Historyline (Almedom et al., 1997; Freudenberger, 2008) is a co-constructive
method in which community elders co-construct a timeline of the major historical events
of the community using their own local way to describe time. Calendar (Almedom et al.,
1997; Freudenberger, 2008; PeaceCorps, 2005) is another co-constructive method in
which community members co-develop a calendar that describes seasonal variation and
traditions of the community. Lastly, with “Wealth Ranking” (Freudenberger, 2008)
community members use beans, sticks, or small rocks to rank the wealth of individuals
and groups of the community.
5.2.2.4 Methods to Identify and Characterize Stakeholders
This fourth set of methods is comprised of one passive, four consultative, and four co-
constructive methods that enable to identify stakeholders and characterize their
connections and relationships. Bowen and Acciaioli (2005) propose to use the “Arena

111

Model,” a passive method that leverages social network theory to construct a model that
visualizes all the relationships among stakeholders involved in a project. With Chevalier
and Buckles’(2008) Social Analysis Clip, engineers can consult community members in
order to create stakeholders profiles based on four factors: “(i) power, (ii) interests, (iii)
legitimacy, and (iv) existing relations of collaboration and conflict” (p. 178). Similarly,
with the “V.I.P.” (Values, Interests, Positions) method (Chevalier and Buckles, 2008) and
the Value-Sensitive Empirical Investigation (Frideman et al 2006), engineers interview
stakeholders in order to map and compare stakeholders’ position on values and interests
related to a project. The “Stakeholder Identification” method (Chevalier and Buckles,
2008) enables engineers to map stakeholders in a rainbow diagram based on the degree to
which stakeholders influence and can be affected by the outcomes of a project.
In contrast with the previous consultative methods, in the “Social Network
Mapping” exercise (Freudenberger, 2008; PeaceCorps, 2005) community members draw
a Venn diagram that maps the relationships among various individuals, households, and
organizations of the community. In Chevalier and Buckles’(2008) Role Dynamics,
stakeholders assess what they expect of each other and how to satisfy the requirements
associated with their roles. Lastly, “Social Domain” is a co-constructive exercise that
enables community members to construct a matrix of the relationship among each
stakeholder. The columns of the matrix are stakeholders, while each row are
characteristics that community members consider important in order to characterize each
stakeholder.

112

5.2.2.5 Methods to Map Community
While the previous sub-set comprised methods to develop social maps, this fifth and last
sub-set includes one consultative, and one co-constructive method to map physical
aspects of a community. In Transect Walks (Freudenberger, 2008) and Systematic
Walkabout (Almedom et al., 1997), engineers take a walk with community members and,
as they consult them, sketch locations of important landmarks of the community. By
contrast, in Participatory Mapping (Almedom et al., 1997; Beebe, 2001; Freudenberger,
2008; PeaceCorps, 2005), community members with the facilitation of engineers draw a
map of their own community. This map can be drawn on the ground and rocks and sticks
could be used to indicate different landmarks, or on flipcharts with marker pens.
5.2.3 Solution Development Methods
This third and last group of methods comprises 15 (23%) of the 64 methods that can
enable engineers to develop solutions. These methods serve two specific functions: 1)
ideate and prototype solutions, and 2) evaluate and select possible solutions. As reported
in Table 5.3, passive methods are more common with 10 out of 15 total, while
consultative and co-constructive are more rare, with 3 and 2 out of 15 respectively. In the
sub-sections below, I describe, compare, and contrast passive, consultative, and co-
constructive methods within each of the four function groups.

113

Table 5.3. Solution Development Methods
Passive Consultative Co-constructive
To Ideate and
Prototype a
Solution
Role-play
Storyboard
Brainstorm
Models
Capabilities quick
sheet
Expert interviews
Build on the idea Participatory co-design
To Select and
Evaluate a
Solution
Multicriteria
analysis
Sustainability matrix
Value sensitive
technical
investigation
Structured decision-
making
SWOT-AHP
Intervention ranking
matrix
5.2.3.1 Methods to Ideate and Prototype a Solution
The first sub-set of methods contains six passive, one consultative, and one co-
constructive methods that enable engineers to brainstorm and prototype solutions to an
identified problem or to meet a specific objective. It is important to note that all of the six
methods belonging to this group come from IDEO’s (2014) toolkit, which is therefore the
only source that proposed structured ways to ideate and prototype solutions. The six
passive and the one consultative methods are all meant to be used sequentially. The first
method, Brainstorming, is a passive exercise that allows designers to develop possible
solutions to an identified problem. The passive methods “Capability Quick Sheet” and
“Expert Interview” provide structured ways to identify needed capabilities to develop and
implement a solution and to gain technical advice on the solution to be developed.
Similarly, the “Role-Play” and “Story Boards” methods allow designers to “imagine the
complete story of a user’s experience [with a solution] through a series of images or
sketches.” The “Models” method is a passive technique that provides instructions on how

114

to quickly develop a cheap and simple prototype. This method is naturally followed by
the “Build on the Idea” method (consultative), which requires designers to share the
prototype with the community members and gain their input.
“Participatory Co-Design” is a co-constructive technique that includes all the
above activities. However, in contrast with the five aforementioned methods, the
community members or direct users attend a workshop, during which designers and
community members brainstorm together to generate possible solutions and co-develop
prototypes. Thus, the community members co-produce ideas and artifacts with the
facilitation of the designers.
5.2.3.2 Methods to Evaluate and Select Solutions
This last sub-set of methods includes three passive, two consultative, and one co-
constructive method that enable engineers to evaluate, compare, and thus select proposed
solutions. The three passive methods belonging to this group help engineers evaluate
possible solutions based on pre-defined criteria. The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA, Garfi
and Ferrer-Mati, 2011) approach evaluates and compares solution based on a set of
several criteria that are grouped in four main factors: technical, social, economic, and
environmental. Friedman et al. (2006) proposes a system to evaluate and select
technologies based on local values, which were identified through a value-based
investigation (see section 5.3.3). Leydens and Lucena (2014) developed the Human
Capabilities Matrix, which can be used to evaluate and compare designs based on their
potential to enhance Nussabuam’s 10 human capabilities: “1) life, 2) bodily health, 3)
bodily integrity, 4) senses, imagination, and though, 5) emotions, 6) practical reason, 7)

115

affiliation, 8) other specifies, 9) play, and 10) control over one’s political and material
environment” (Leydens & Lucena, 2014, p. 17).
The two consultative method requires engineers to consult stakeholders in order
to get information that the will be used to evaluate solutions based on pre-defined criteria.
Specifically, Okello (2014) proposes the use of the Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats (SWOT) – Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), while Avrai and Post (2012)
propose a risk-based structured decision making system specifically for Point-of-Use
water treatment systems that could be also expended to evaluate other applications.
Finally, the only co-constructive method is the Intervention Ranking Matrix. The
biggest difference with all the previous methods is that the evaluation criteria are not pre-
defined, but rather, they are co-developed by community members during a workshop
facilitated by the engineers. Thus, each time this method is used, the criteria will change
based on the agreement of the community members participating in the workshop.
5.3 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I presented a use-inspired framework to classify methods based on two
dimensions: the level of community participation and the function of the methods. The
two dimensions allow engineers to choose methods based on what they need to
accomplish and to what extent they want to involve community members. The level of
community participation does not go from worse to best, but they rather provide a range
of possibility. In any given project, engineers could use a combination of passive,
consultative, and co-constructive methods. For instance, in one project, engineers could
use secondary research, interviews, and participatory mapping. And while this analysis
does not readily enable determination of which methods would and would not go best

116

together, it might not be practical and effective to use multiple methods within the same
cell (i.e., with same function and participation level). For instance, if an engineer needs to
identify all of the stakeholders in a co-constructive way, he/she may choose between
Social Network Mapping (Freudenberger, 2008) or Role Dynamics (Chevalier & Buckles,
2008), which are both co-constructive and have very similar purposes.
In terms of project phase, the proposed framework spans almost all the possible
project phase. Thus, engineers are able to choose a method based on one or more specific
purposes that they are trying to achieve. For instance, if in the middle of a project they
need to gain more information about some stakeholder group, they can consult the
methods in section 5.2.2.4 and choose the one that best fit their needs. It is worth noting
that I found a limited number of methods focusing on solution development. In fact, the
methods to ideate and prototype as solution (section 5.2.3.1) come all from IDEO and
refer to very early stages of conceptualizing solutions. The more advanced stages of
developing and implementing the solutions are missing from this framework and will
require more research in the future.
Another way to think about choosing the methods is to select methods based on
the engineers’ philosophy related to HE. For instance, in chapter 4, I reported that some
papers discussed that understanding the structural and historical condition that led to
specific community needs is a very important aspect of the project cycle (section 4.1.3).
The methods to understand a problem of section 5.2.1.1 can provide many options to
meet this criterion. Timeline (Chevalier and Buckles, 2008) provides a way to identify
the historical roots of a problem and how it evolved overtime, while problem tree
(Chevalier and Buckles, 2008) provides an effective way to recognize first and second

117

order causes of a problem. On the other hand, some engineers might be more interested in
taking a more empathic approach, which would requires considerable perspective-taking
on the part of engineers. One of the methods that could help engineers to achieve this
goal is Ones’ (2013) adaptation of August Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. In this
method, engineers would participate in an interactive skit organized by community
members, which would enable engineers to experience a simulated version of the lived
issues that community members decided to represent. In sum, the framework offers a
flexible map of methods that engineers can choose based on their philosophy or needs.
Finally, I assigned one level of participation and one specific function based on
how they were described in the literature. However, this does not mean that the methods
could not be used in different ways. Many of the passive methods could be used in
consultative or co-constructive methods and vice-versa. For instance, the exemplar
passive method secondary research could be used in a co-constructive way if community
members are the ones doing the research. After the community members searched for
information about their own community, they could debrief with the external facilitator
and discuss the extent to which the information that was retrieved properly represents the
community. Based on the results, the community members could reconstruct the
information to their liking.
By contrast, co-constructive methods could also be used as passive methods. For
instance, Chevalier and Buckles (2008) describe problem tree as co-constructive method,
but it is easy to imagine how it could be as a passive method if engineers develop their
own problem tree based on secondary research. Additionally, while some methods have
very specific functions (e.g., mapping, identifying stakeholders, planning), some methods

118

are more flexible and could be used during multiple phases of a project. For instance,
interviews, focus groups, and observations can be used at any time in a project. Therefore,
the framework should be understood as an initial guideline and resource, and it is up to
engineers to decide how to use the methods.
In the next chapter, I report on potential benefits and challenges of using specific
groups of methods reported in this chapter. The set of potential benefits and challenges
was obtained by interviewing practitioners. Understanding benefits and challenges can be
every useful to help engineers decide which methods to use, when to use them, and what
to take into account when using them.

119

CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF USING PARTICIPATORY
METHODS
In chapter 4 and 5 I reported on the results of analyzing what has been published in the
literature related to involving community partners in humanitarian engineering projects.
In this chapter, I report on the insights that fourteen practitioners (faculty and
professionals with multi-disciplinary backgrounds) shared regarding the use of a sample
of the methods I reported in chapter 5. As explained in chapter 3, during the interview, I
shared 21 methods (about a third of the methods I collected during phase 1b) with the
participants, and I asked them to comment on these methods, including to state whether
they used or were familiar with the methods and possible positive and negatives aspects
of using these methods. The 21 methods were chosen to represent all the possible
functions and participation levels of the framework reported in chapter 5. The goal of
sharing this smaller set of methods was to elicit transferable insights that will be
presented in this chapter.
Specifically, for the data analysis, I developed a codebook that comprised five
broader codes. I coded as “Used,” any instances where the participants explicitly stated
that they had used a method before. I coded as “Familiar” when the participants stated
they were familiar or know the method but had not used or did not explicitly stated they

120

had used it before. I coded as “Similar” when participants affirmed they used a similar
method, but not exactly the one they were commenting on. To keep track of their
evaluations of the methods, I coded as “Positive” all positive views about a method and
as “Negative” all the negative opinions. The “Positive” code was further divided into
two child codes. Namely, I coded a segment as “Interesting” when participants simply
stated their potential interest in using a method, or as “Benefits” when participants
pointed to specific advantages of using a method. The “Negative” code was also divided
into four child codes. Specifically, I created four child codes for four different challenges:
practical, communication, cultural, and ethical. Table 6.1 reports example quotes for each
of the aforementioned codes.
Table 6.1. Codes and Short Examples for Each Code
Codes Example quotes
Used “I engaged in semi-structured interviews” [Anne Dare]
Familiar “I know force field; we don’t use it.” [Mark Henderson]
Similar “Option domain, we’ve used something similar to that.” [David Munoz]
Positives
Interesting “Rainbow diagram, that’s interesting.” [Marissa Jablonski]
Benefits
“In terms of community buy-in, there was one other
technique that I find is really useful, which is, to get a
community meeting together and have people draw a map.”
[David Frossard]
Negatives
Practical challenges “there are some practical limitations when you get in the field that I think inhibit a lot of them” [Anne Dare]
Communicational
challenges
“If you say the wrong word in a first sentence you can
actually send that conversation off to the direction no one
intended.” [George]
Cultural challenges “I think, talking about money is not the social norm.” [Ken Kastman]
Ethical Challenges “We certainly have strong child protection policies, photo policies” [Michael]

121

In the sections below, I elaborate on the details regarding the five codes reported in
table 6.1, including by sharing relevant quotes from the interviews with participants. In
section 6.1, I provide an overview of the participants’ familiarity with the methods, which
is based on examining the “Used”, “Familiar”, and “Similar” codes. Then, in sections 6.2
and 6.3, I elaborate on some positive aspects and negative aspects of using these methods,
which was based on the analysis of the “Positive” and “Negative” codes.
6.1 Participants’ Familiarity With the Methods
In table 6.2, I present a summary reporting the prevalence of the “Used,” “Familiar,” and
“Similar” codes for each method. Specifically, in table 6.2 there are 21 rows, one for each
method I shared with the interviewees, and five columns for the four codes “Used,”
“Familiar,” “Similar,” “Positives,” and “Negatives” (I will discuss the “Positives” and
“Negatives” codes in the sections 6.2 and 6.3 respectively). The cells for the codes report
the number of participants associated with each code. For instance, one participant stated
that he/she used the method “photovoice,” one participant stated that s/he was familiar
with the method, but did not really used it, and five participants used something similar to
photovoice. The row labeled “Overall” reports how many participants’ transcripts
included “Used,” “Familiar,” “Similar,” “Positives,” and “Negatives” codes.

122

Table 6.1. Number of Transcripts Coded Under the Five Codes for Each Method
Used Familiar Similar Positives Negatives
Problem Tree 1 0 2 0 1
Force Field 1 1 1 1 1
Timeline 0 1 4 0 0
Photovoice 1 1 5 1 4
Framework 0 1 2 0 1
Matrices 0 1 2 1 1
Calendar 1 1 3 1 0
Daily Activities 1 1 3 0 0
Wealth Ranking 0 0 1 0 3
Participatory mapping 5 0 0 4 0
Rainbow diagram 0 1 3 1 0
Venn Diagram 0 0 2 1 0
Value-Sensitive Investigation 0 0 1 2 0
Self-Documentation 1 0 0 0 2
Trees of Means and Ends 0 0 1 2 1
Priority Ranking 4 0 6 1 0
Brainstorm session 5 0 2 0 0
Option domain 0 1 5 0 1
Human-capabilities matrix 0 0 0 0 1
Community Action plan 1 0 2 0 0
Prototypes 6 0 0 1 0
Overall 13 4 14 7 7

Table 6.2 provides some insights to understand the extent to which the
participants were familiar with the 20 methods. All 14 participants used methods similar
to least one method listed in the table, 13 participants had used at least one of the
methods, and 4 participants were familiar with at least one method, but did not explicitly
stated having used it. Thus, the cumulative numbers in the last row of Table 6.2 indicate

123

that most participants either used one or more methods and/or used similar ones. For
instance, when Anne Dare read the description of the “timeline” exercise, she commented
that she had not used exactly that method, but rather she leveraged a similar concept in
her own practice:
I would not say necessarily that a physical timeline was created but this
concept of thinking about history, history of your particular project, or the
history of the community more unrelated to the technical challenges itself.
Sometimes, the participant said they did not used a specific method, but used a very
similar method, as exemplified in the following exchange between me (AM) and Mark
Henderson (MH):
MH: Rainbow diagram: No. We use something similar, because rainbow
diagram is about stakeholders, right?
AM: Right.
MH: We use something called a stakeholder matrix that may be similar.
The most used frequently used methods were “prototyping” (which included also
sharing the prototypes with community members), “participatory mapping,” and
“brainstorming sessions,” while priority ranking, brainstorming sessions, and photovoice
were the most “Similar.” Only 10 (50%) methods were not used by any participant.
However, even if these 10 methods were not used, at least one participant was familiar
with methods similar to those. For instance, none of the participants used the method
“Rainbow diagram,” but three used something very similar to it, as showed in the
previous quotes from Mark Henderson’s interview, and one was familiar with it, but had
not used it. This suggested that I had collected enough information to comment on almost

124

all the methods and to develop transferable insights. The only method that none of my
participants was familiar with was “The Human Capabilities Matrix.” This, however, is
not surprising and does not limit the insights of this study, because this method was
published for the first time in late 2014 (Leydens and Lucena, 2014) and the interviews
occurred in the fall of 2015.
In general, when the participants stated they used a method, it was because they
had learned about the method before actually using it, as one normally would expect.
However, in one particular occasion, Marissa Jablonski found herself using “participatory
mapping” without having planned to use it, or without specifically knowing she was
using something like a pre-existing method. As she put it: “it kind of happened naturally.”
It is worth further describing this situation because it provides a nice example of
interactions between engineers and community members in the early stages of a project.
In a project in Guatemala, Marissa Jablonski and her team were working on a
water distribution system to connect the houses of a small community to a water spring in
the mountains. In one of their first site visits, they were planning to walk through the
village with some members of the local water committee to decide the walkways for the
pipes of a water system. However, not knowing where to begin she asked the water
committee members to draw a map for the community on a piece of paper. The
committee members became quickly engaged with the task:
So I said, What if you guys drew your village? So we took time and they
drew it. And everybody kind of swarmed around the guy with the
notebook and the pencil and they gave their input and then… then
scratched that first one. They were like “no, no, no! We made a mistake!

125

Give us a new sheet of paper!” and so they changed the pages and started
again and they… so then, it became a question of… “does it make sense in
your mind? There are obvious walkways. So does it make sense to follow
this walkways and put the pipe there?” And they said “yeah. That makes
the most sense because it would be easier, because we would not have to
go through so many peoples’ land.” So that’s how that happened. [Marissa
Jablonski]
Noticing how effective that exercise was, Marissa Jablonski decided to also use this
technique in her other projects.
Furthermore, it also worth looking at the extent to which each participant talked
about the methods I shared with them. One thing that stood out from a general look at the
interview transcripts is that David Frossard and Gary Burniske were the ones that seemed
more familiar with or had used most of the methods. The reason for this could be
associated to their different background as compared to all the other participants. In fact,
they were the only two to have an educational background in social science and had
worked for major international development organizations in their past. For instance,
both David and Gary were the only two interviewees who had Peace Corps experience,
which may help explain his greater familiarity with the methods, as some of the methods
were taken from a Peace Corps field manual. This is not surprising, especially because of
something that Robin Semer (RS) also discussed. In one of her projects, she used a highly
participatory method, which requires participants to collaborate draw their vision for a
sanitation system (or something else). She shared that this specific method was
suggested by a colleague of hers, who happened to have had a Peace Corps experience:

126

AM: How did you come up with that idea?
RS: One of the engineers who works with us had been in the Peace Corps,
and he talked with some of his Peace Corps buddies and some of the ones
who were more educationally-oriented, who suggested that as an exercise
to start the process. [Robin Semer]
This aligns with one specific finding that is discussed in the Chapter 4, 7, and 8,
that is, community participation is better facilitated when a multidisciplinary team
with diverse backgrounds is involved in a project.
Finally, it is important to point out that even though the participants did not use all
of the methods listed in Table 6.2, this does not imply that the participants of this study
did not interact extensively with the community members. Many participants in fact used
more traditional methods like interviews and focus groups. Most of the participants also
interacted with community members trough official community meetings, while others
intentionally participated in social events to build relationship with their partners (as
discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 7).
6.2 Positive Aspects
The goal of sharing the methods listed in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 was to gather insights that
could inform which types of methods might be most useful and what aspects need to be
taken into account when using different types of methods. As reported in table 6.2, 7
participants expressed positive comments for at least one method, and participatory
mapping was the method that was praised the most. In this section, I report on the
positive comments that the participants expressed while they reviewed the list of methods
reported in tables 6.2.

127

To begin, the breadth and length of the participants’ responses varies notably. The
participants that were not very familiar with some of the methods oftentimes simply
stated their interest in using the method and the related potential benefits. For example, as
Emily Wigley stated:
Force field, the force field one is interesting – I don’t believe we’ve used it.
I think this would be a good tool because it seems like they are trying to
use it for identifying the impact level of things. [Emily Wigley]
Others, who were more familiar with the methods, provided many different insights that
will be presented in the following pages.
In reviewing the methods, David Frossard shared positive comments related to
two methods he was very familiar with: 1) mental maps (a method very similar to
Freundenberger’s (2008) Venn Diagram and Peace Corps’ (2005) Social Network
Mapping), 2) calendars (Almedom et al., 1997; Freudenberger, 2008; PeaceCorps, 2005),
and priority ranking (PeaceCorps, 2005). In mental maps (also known as Social Network
Mapping or Venn Diagrams) a group of community members creates a representation of
the stakeholders of the community and their relationships. With calendar, community
members draw a calendar of their typical year and represent seasonal variations in
weather and commitments (e.g., agriculture cycles). In priority ranking, community
members create a list of problem they would like to address and then they rank them
based on their perceived sense of urgency.
Regarding mental maps, David Frossard suggests that it fosters community buy-in
and it allows to identify what the community members perceives as the resources and
strengths of their own community:

128

Eventually, you get a mental map of the things that they think are the real
resources to them, and the things that they feel or think are distant,
unaccountable, not very useful kinds of resources. This kind of mental
map is really sort of this weird psychological test about what the village
thinks about all the resources that are around them. [David Frossard]
Calendars instead are very useful to understand when it would be appropriate to
undertake project activity, as in some period of the year the community might not be
available to engage in the project activities:
Knowing that there’s a season where no one is going to working on “your”
fish ponds because they’re out in the field somewhere is extremely
important to your project. Knowing when religious holidays can be crucial.
We went to Nicaragua at Christmas, it turns out that December, people
pretty much take December off. The people that worked with us were
really giving up their vacation to work with us, and so they were super
dedicated but I felt kind of bad. So after that, we started going after New
Year’s instead of going at Christmas because then it’s a little more
acceptable time to get people to work. Volunteer on a project. [David
Frossard]
This is not an uncommon challenge to resolve in these types of project. Gary Burniske
also reported on a very similar situation where he and his team had to make sure all the
project activities were accomplished before the summer when the local men usually
migrated to another country to work:

129

Then there’s the other problem was that men migrated out, particularly
during the summer months. They would go to Russia and work in the
construction industry, so come April or so, May, often men would migrate
to larger cities in Russia and would not return until harvest season. So we
needed to also look at those social considerations because the potable
water systems and constructing latrines took a lot of labor, so we needed
to know that there would be sufficient labor to get the systems installed,
because we were working within a window between, let’s say, April and
October. We had to have everything installed, because once the winter
came, then it would snow and then the ground would freeze, and so you
can’t really undertake any construction activities during that period. [Gary
Burniske]
Therefore, creating a calendar that describes seasonal variations and the major events of
the community is a very beneficial exercise to do with the community.
Many participants also identified as very useful methods like priority ranking and
option domain because it allowed them to ensure that what they were working on was
aligned with the desires of the community, or as David Frossard put it:
Priority ranking? Absolutely, because if you’re coming in there with a
project and they rank that #7 on their list, you better rethink what you’re
doing there.
Thus, it becomes always very important to sit down with community members and do an
exercise that allows everyone present to clearly identify the community’s priorities.

130

Yet, the method that received the most praise was participatory mapping. The
greatest benefit of this method is that it allows creating a stronger and more equal
relationship between the foreign engineers or other professionals and local community
members. Mark Henderson often uses this technique in open-air environment, where
members of the community draw the map on the ground using leaves and colored papers:
we clear off a spot on the ground, a big spot, like dirt or maybe on
concrete or on the street … on the road. They use leaves and twigs and
colored pieces of paper and things like that. They lay those out on the map
where those things exist in the village. [Mark Henderson]
For Mark Henderson, the greatest benefit of doing this participatory mapping exercise is
that “it helps establish more trust, because they understand we’re not there to dominate;
we’re there to learn, so maybe their defenses go down” [Mark Henderson]. In fact, he
often observed that the community members may even start arguing over what to put in
the map and where. This arguing is evidence that the community members are becoming
more comfortable around Mark Henderson and his team and therefore trust is being built
with the community members:
Some great experiences we’ve had is that when we’re doing the maps and
things like that, some of the community members will actually get in
arguments themselves about where to put things on the map. That means
that they’re relaxing around us; that means that they’re comfortable
disagreeing with each other. [Mark Henderson]
When Marissa Jablonski did her participatory mapping exercise, she noticed
similar dynamics among the members of the community that participated in this

131

participatory activity (as shared in a quote a few pages above). She also noticed that the
benefits of using this technique were twofold. On one hand, it helped the engineering
students that were with her to realize that they did not know everything and that the
community had very valuable knowledge and expertise:
It shows our group that they know, right? And our students they are like
“oh! Of course they know!” Which really hits home that they live here.
This is their place. Of course, they know. Who are we? We are the
outsiders! [Marissa Jablonski]
On the other hand, it also showed that Marissa Jablonski and her students deeply cared
about the community and that the houses belonged to real people and not some abstract
and detached client:
And then it also, puts names to each house. So when we build… when we
design the water system, we called them like “casa one”, “casa dos… two”,
“casa three”. And when we see that, I don’t know, José Ramirez lives at
casa one, in our map, we can write casa one – José Ramirez. So when we
are building this system we say. This is José Ramirez’s house. And they
say “you were paying attention! We are people!” Yeah we are all people.
That kind of connection is there. [Marissa Jablonski]
Thus, in both Mark Henderson and Marissa Jablonski’s cases, the participatory mapping
exercise helped build trusting relationships that became the basis for successful and
sustainable projects in the long term (as I had suggested in Chapter 4 and will further
explain in Chapter 7).

132

Similar benefits and dynamics were reported by Robin Semer when she used a
participatory drawing exercise to discuss sanitation options during a site visit in a village
in Guatemala. Rather than asking the community members to draw a map of the
community, this activity involves asking the community members to draw their vision for
the future of the sanitation of their community:
“We want to know your dreams for the future,” and we pulled out some
big paper and we gave them some markers, and we said, “Here. We’d like
you to draw for us. You say you need some sanitation. Draw for us what
your view is, you know, of what you have now and what you want for the
future.” [Robin Semer]
As in the cases of participatory mapping described earlier, the community members were
very engaged in doing this exercise:
They got really, really into this, like spent, oh, more than a half an hour
drawing, and the people were commenting collectively amongst
themselves, trying to say what they wanted, etcetera. [Robin Semer]
At the end of this exercise, the community members expressed their appreciation for how
Robin Semer and her team treated them, explaining that they had never felt so respected
by foreigners:
Then at the end of the meeting, they stood up one by one and told us that
they had never worked with anybody like us, that they never felt so much
respect and partnership with any group that they had ever worked with.
[Robin Semer]

133

This result was particularly important for Robin Semer and her team, because the
community members were used to having donor-beneficiary types of relationship with
foreigners, rather than the equal partnership that Robin Semer and her team were trying
to establish:
They’d never heard this idea that they were the owners of the project and
that we were not going to do anything without knowing that the project
would meet their needs and be what they would want. [Robin Semer]
After this exercise, the relationship between Robin Semer and her community partner
become stronger and stronger as they continued engaging in an equal partnership.
To summarize the insights aforementioned, co-constructive methods like
participatory mapping must meet two requirements to be really beneficial and effective;
namely, they must provide valuable information on the socio-cultural context of the
community, while at the same time positioning engineers as learners and community
members as experts. This positioning, in turn, allows engineers and other professionals to
recognize that community members possess valuable expertise to contribute to a project,
while at the same shows that the engineers really value the insights and the contribution
of the community members.
6.3 Negative Aspects
While participatory methods can offer many benefits, including building trusting
relationships, there are also many challenges that engineers need to take into account. In
this section, I report on four main challenges and pitfalls related to using participatory
methods as identified by my interviewees. The four challenges that emerged from the
thematic analysis of participants’ “negative” insights are: 1) practical challenges, 2)

134

communicational challenges, 3) cultural challenges, and 4) ethical challenges. Below, I
describe each type of challenge, providing quotes from the interview transcripts to help
illustrate each challenge.
6.3.1 Practical Challenges
The participants in the study shared three general, practical impediments to using some of
the methods listed in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. The first impediment is related to the availability
of the resources needed to undertake some of these projects, including materials, facilities,
favorable climate, and cost. After reading through the list of methods, for example, Anne
Dare remembered that in one instance she had wanted to try using more participatory
techniques which leveraged the use flipcharts, but she gave up due the limited resources
available and the hostile climate:
I brought this up when I was in Colombia, wouldn’t it be great if we had a
flip chart to record ideas or to like sketch out ideas as we have them? And
it was like, you know, it is raining and we are driving around the
countryside, what were we going to do with the flipchart in the meantime?
[…] I would not drive that thing around anyway and plus by the time that
we got there it would be probably soaking wet.
Then, she concluded that if the conditions were right and the resources available, she
would have loved to engage with some of these methods, although most of the time, it is
better to rely on one’s own ability to facilitate discussion even without a flipchart or other
engaging materials:
I think if the facilities were right and the participants were curious, open,
and willing enough, I would definitely love to engage. But like I said… if

135

it is the rainy season and you are driving around in a van, and you have
limited things you can carry with you and you show up in the facility you
were planning on working with your participants and does not have
electricity or a table or anything. You will become quite limited in the
kinds of things that you can do. And so you kind have to rely back on your
own ability to facilitate discussion and generate ideas without a lot of extra
materials or capability to walk around pointing out things.
A similar limitation was observed both by David Frossard and Emily Wigley,
especially for photo-voice or other methods utilizing cameras. David Frossard observes
that in small, rural communities of many countries, people might not have access to
camera and therefore would not be able to take pictures:
Yeah, I think that’s a clever one but I that’s probably a very recent kind of
thing that would not be possible in a lot of places. Where we lived in
Zambia there was no electricity, there was no phone service, there was not
a paved road, there was no running water unless I put it in the bucket and
ran with it. We got our water out of an open hole in the ground and we
treated it, filtered it so it’s not a place where any of this Photo-voice stuff
would apply.
Emily Wigley adds that even if people have access to camera and/or cell phones, the cost
of printing or transmitting the picture would be prohibitive:
I think in Central America we could do something like this. I would be
concerned with the cost to the community for sharing photos. I’d want to
look at using a repository like Dropbox so that the pictures are accessible

136

to both EWB and the community. I would just be concerned with the data
cost on the community. [Emily Wigley]
While the first impediment was related to limitations associated with needed
materials, costs, and logistics related to undertaking the methods and share the
information, the second impediment highlights the fact that community members have
limited time to engage in more participatory methods. Michael recognizes that methods
like IDEO’s self-documentation put lots of pressure on community members and
therefore they might not be a great fit. Similarly, Kevin Passino points out that some of
these methods require heavy participation on the part of the community, which is not
usually possible:
I think it’s very hard to know which method is going to work. Here is what
I’m thinking. Some of these methods require some pretty heavy
participation. If you are not getting good participation from a community,
you are only getting participation from three people or something.
Methods can fall apart; I think it becomes pretty difficult. [Kevin Passino]
Moreover, if engineers and other professionals take too much time away from community
members in order to engage with these methods, the community can become annoyed by
it and refuse to participate, especially if all those interactions might not have produced
any tangible outcome. For instance, during one field trip, Robert’s students wanted to go
door-to-door to collect data, but some members of their local NGO advised against it:
Then we wanted to go back and do more service and the partners just like,
“Don’t do it. It’s raising expectations. Nothing has happened. No one has

137

electricity based on the survey so far.” He said it doesn’t reflect good on
our NGO to keep doing this. He said, “Don’t do it.”
Robert’s students were quite surprised by the reaction of their NGO partners, especially
because before departing for that trip they were reminded of the importance of surveying
the community. Yet, they accepted the feedback from their NGO partners and moved on
to something more practical:
Our new group of students that weren’t part of the original group of
students, because the students turned over and so they are thinking, well,
we are told in all of our classes, “We have to go find out what the
community’s need are and we have to do the survey to find the community
needs.” Sometimes there is a more practical stuff. You just got to step
back and say, “Well, we know people in the community. We know our
NGO.” Half the people that work for the NGO are from that community.
The director grew up there, “Let’s just ask them.” You don’t get scientific
“value” from doing that. In a practical manner that makes a lot more sense
than doing another survey and getting another IRB approval. [Robert]
Therefore, when a relationship with a local partner had been established for a long time,
the wiser thing to do might be not to engage extensively with more community members,
especially if that engagement happened in previous fieldtrips.
The third and last aspect that might limit the extent to which community members
can participate in some of these methods is their educational background. David Frossard
observes that a problem tree is something that is well suited for dealing with corporate

138

clients, who are generally more educated, which is not always the case of community
members:
Problem tree can work, especially if you have educated people in the
village who have been to college and who might think in an engineering or
scientific way, that can work. But it’s often outside the experience of
regular people. [David Frossard]
Similarly, he saw studies using “option domain” with more educated people, because it
can get complicated. Likewise, IDEO’s self-documentation, which requires participants
to write a journal, might be “hard where people can’t read and write” [David Frossard].
In sum, many of the co-constructive methods reported in Chapter 5 require
materials, unrealistic levels of community engagement, facilities, costs, and a level of
education that may limit their use. Consequently, it is not surprising that the participatory
mapping approach was the method that was most praised, as it can be easily adapted to
various conditions and kept relatively inexpensively. In fact, it could be done on the
ground with sticks, rocks, and leaves, or on paper in rural area, and on paper with
markers in community centers or more urban areas.
6.3.2 Communication Challenges
In addition to encountering practical challenges while using these methods, engineers
need also to talk into account communication challenges. The participants expressed two
types of challenges as related to communicating with community members. The first
challenge centers on the actual choice of words that engineers use when communicating
with partners while using these methods. The wrong use of words can derail the process

139

and hinder proper participation on the part of community members. As George noted, for
example:
The power of language itself, I’m not trying to be touchy feely but here’s
the point and you know this as someone is trying to speak Italian. If you
say the wrong word in a first sentence, you can actually send that
conversation off to the direction no one intended. [George]
Using the right language means also being able to ask questions in an open-ended
way that is also appropriate for the culture where the conversations are taking place. In
preparing his students to interview community members, for instance, David Frossard
pushes them to use more open-ended questions and to avoid questions that might be
specific to the students’ culture, but might not be completely appropriate for the
community where they are doing a project:
The problem I normally see is that … Well, a couple problems. One is the
questions students ask are very specific to our culture and very not attuned
to other cultures unless they’ve been there and spent time. It’s a very, kind
of, ethnocentric set of questions. Beyond that, they tend to be very specific
questions based on what engineers think about. I tended to say, ‘How
about some more opened ended [ones]?’
Both Anne and Marissa also learned this lesson over time and through experience trying
different approaches. Anne remembers that in her first projects she leveraged very
structured surveys that allowed her to collect the same data across many subjects:
I guess the first time I did kind of a human subjects research project we
stuck more to a survey. This was also in Palestine among the first times I

140

visited. We really stuck to a survey because we wanted to collect very
consistent information from house to house.
However, she soon noticed the pitfalls and limitations of this approach:
We could not get through to the kind of meat of information you wanted to
find out from someone because you were so constrained by asking the
question that you had to ask so that you could have a very complete
spreadsheet of answers from everyone you interviewed. So that’s why I
started shy away from that. [Anne Dare]
Consequently, over time she moved to a less structured interview protocol, which
allowed her greater flexibility to adapt her questions on the fly:
I use more a survey that I developed kind of a guide to remind me the next
thing I want to ask about and to allow for some consistency, but then it
allowed me some flexibility to stray away from that if someone brought up
a topic that I really enjoyed or thought was really important. [Anne Dare]
Similarly, Marissa Jablonski recalls that in her earliest projects she used to go door to
door to explain how to wash hands to community members, but now instead she goes to
have more informal conversation and listen to their concerns:
We used to hold these flashcards and say you should wash your hands,
you should not play with pigs, and you, you, you… And now, we are like,
you are going to live as you live, but what are your questions? What do
you think about water?

141

Therefore, choosing the right words and allowing for some open-endedness may improve
communication between engineers and community members, thereby enhancing the
effectiveness of using consultative and co-constructive methods.
And yet, word-choice is not the only communication-related challenge that the
participant commented on. The second communication challenge is probably the most
obvious as it refers to language differences between community members and engineers.
In fact, Emily Wigley reports that she encountered the greatest communication challenges
during an Engineering Without Borders project in a small village in Burkina Faso:
The project that I worked on in Burkina Faso was probably my most
challenging for language translation because throughout the country most
people don’t speak English, they speak French. In the area we were in,
most didn’t speak French, they spoke at least one of several sub-dialects.
[Emily Wigley]
To address this challenge, she worked with translators to translate the questionnaire in the
local language and then back-translate it into English to make sure that the translations
were accurate:
When we were doing all our pre-questionnaires to go through it for
ourselves, thinking about what we would like to ask the community when
we meet them, we had to translate it to French then have it translated into
a sub-dialect. Then we would have somebody translate it back to us to see
if we were actually getting the intent of the question across because it is
easy for things to get lost in translation. [Emily Wigley]

142

Communicating with the support of translators is in fact quite common and many
participants shared that they always have present somebody that speaks the local
language when interacting with community members. Yet, many things can be lost in
translation especially when talking about technical aspects of a project, which can lead to
confusion. Ken Kastman experienced that sort of confusion in the early stages of a water
project in a small Mexican community:
When Dina, our community champion, first came and talked, she talked
about a project for a “water press.” We couldn’t figure out what that meant.
Why do you want to press water? What’s a water press? It turned out after
talking to her, that in Spanish, the word “pressa” is “dam”. She was
actually asking us to design a dam to contain water, which is what she
thought would be the solution to having enough water in the dry time of
the year. I tell that part of the story because it highlights the difficulty of
translation of technical terms, even for people that understand them. [Ken
Kastman].
Furthermore, translators are often not very fluent in English themselves or may gloss over
details that might instead be very valuable, as happened to Anne Dare while she was
doing fieldwork in Palestine to investigate water re-use options. Although Anne Dare was
not completely fluent in the local language, she was able to understand that the translator
was not always completely trustworthy:
I started identifying times when I think he would gloss over things and
telling me more what I wanted to hear just to move things along instead of
telling me exactly what people were saying and letting me like you know

143

quiz that a little further. He was like oh yeah this just what the other guy
said, same thing. Actually, as far as I can understand it is not what he said.
Sometimes I had to push a little bit. And be like “Are you sure that’s what
they actually said?”
Consequently, it becomes very important to work with a translator that is committed to
the project to make sure that the translation is accurate. Additionally, being able to talk a
little bit of the local language can become very effective and can allow engineers and
other professionals to earn the respect of the local community. As Anne Dare additionally
explained:
I feel I was a lot more respected when I showed up and introduce myself
and conducted part of the interview myself. People I think were really
appreciative of that. And I think saw me a little bit more as a legitimate
like researcher instead of someone that was just tagging along and may be
wasn’t super committed to the project or whatever. The fact that I had
taken the time to actually learning the phrases that I need to be able to
conduct the interview fostered a lot of respect. [Anne Dare].
In sum, communication is a major part of HE projects. Poor choice of words,
ethnocentric questions, inaccurate translations, and lack of commitment on the part of the
translators can hinder interactions with community members, even when using very
beneficial methods like participatory mapping. Moreover, learning some of the local
language is always well received by community members and allows engineers and other
professionals to earn a lot of respect.

144

6.3.3 Cultural Challenges
The way people communicate and interact is often influenced by their culture. Therefore,
in addition to differences in the way people communicate, differences among cultures
may prevent engineers to effectively and appropriately interact with community members.
Regarding this challenge, Anne Dare shared a very interesting example. While in
Palestine, she was not sure whether or not she should have shook the hand of the men she
was talking to, as she perceived that it would not be culturally appropriate for a man and
a woman who do not know each other to touch each other:
In Palestine and for long time I felt like I should not be shaking… I should
not be giving my hand to shake to men that I met. I did not feel it was
appropriate as a woman to be doing that. Because it is just not super
common for a man and woman that don’t know each other to touch each
other. [Anne Dare]
Yet, one day, under the suggestion of her collaborator, she decided to try to shake the
hand of men, thinking this would show respect. However, in one occasion, she shook the
hand of a man and then realized only afterwards the man had just washed his hands to get
ready for prayer and Anne Dare’s gesture meant the man had to start over again:
My collaborator was like why don’t you offer your hand because they are
waiting for you because you are the woman and you should be the one
giving the hand. I was like this is really weird. I still feel uncomfortable
with this. So you know, the next day we go out and we ran into this guy
and I put out my hand and I “Oh hey I am Anne Dare, nice to meet you”.
And he hesitantly shakes my hand and I find out later that he just washed

145

for prayer and he should have not shook my hand because he was like
ready to go and he had to go rewash completely because I have done that.
Anne Dare felt bad about this cross-cultural incident and she realized that little cultural
differences like this one can come in the way of getting good responses from community
members, even when using very simple methods like interviews.
Local cultural norms can also limit who can interact with whom. For instance,
George reports that in some countries women may not be allowed to talk freely in front of
men, or may not talk the same to a woman who has not yet had a child because the local
women may not consider the foreign a woman a “real” woman. In fact, George explains
that, while in Western countries the “status” of woman is given based on age, in other
communities and cultures a woman is a woman only after bearing a child:
Women may be doing a lot of things that are suffering from a problem but
they won’t say anything in their cultural context in front of the men. Get
this they are not going to say anything openly generally to a young female
student because in their eyes that young female student has not had a child
and therefore, is not a woman therefore they can’t talk to her as a woman.
You see what I’m saying, the fact that you can be 40 years old as a
graduate student never had a child and in their culture you’re still not a
woman. [George]
While this example was specific to cultural limitations regarding gender interactions, it is
easy to imagine how there might be cultural limitations based on other demographic
aspects, including age and social status.

146

In addition to cultural differences involved with interpersonal interactions, some
methods could focus on topics that may not be culturally appropriate to discuss openly.
For instance, many participants characterized the method of “wealth ranking” as
potentially culturally inappropriate. Because of this, Ken Kastman advised against
including this method in a toolkit:
I would not suggest that you include “wealth ranking” in your toolkit. I
don’t think you’ll get an accurate answer. People do not talk about wealth,
and obviously they know who has money. I think, talking about money is
not the social norm. If we said, “How much did you sell your corn
for?” …we would get an answer, but other than that, wealth ranking is just
not something that we got into. [Ken Kastman]
David Frossard expressed a similar opinion regarding “wealth ranking,” adding that it
could even be counterproductive in terms of building strong relationships:
Wealth ranking, I’ve only done that as a social scientist and it’s really
touchy, in a lot of places. Because when you make the wealth differences
apparent, it sort of implies that things are a bit unfair. And the people on
the top get uncomfortable, the people at the bottom sort of like it, but it
doesn’t really build camaraderie. [David Frossard]
It some countries, it can even be dangerous to use this method or to talk about wealth
openly: “doing this, people can get killed. You’d be ill-advised to make this too apparent.
Talking in terms of improving the life of everyone is okay, that’s general enough.”
Therefore, David Frossard strongly suggests fully understanding the culture, history, and

147

politics of the country or locale before using “wealth ranking” or any other method that is
focused on a topic that could be culturally inappropriate to discuss.
In sum, local cultural and social norms may limit both who can interact with
whom and what topics can be discussed openly. This creates many challenges in using
any method, even the simplest like interviews. Consequently, engineers need to
understand the local culture, properly adapt to local norms before undertaking any form
of interaction with the local community members, and rely on trusted informants and
intermediaries within or outside the community.
6.3.4 Ethical Challenges
As noted in the preceding sections, practical, communication, and cultural challenges
were the most common themes identified by the participants. However, two participants
also pointed out some ethical challenges with methods like photo voice that require
taking pictures. For instance, George points out that the main problem with taking picture
relates to how the pictures are used, who owns the pictures, and whether or not informed
consent was obtained. For instance, George speaks against using pictures for fundraising
especially if engineers did not received consent from community members:
I’ve rung people who’ve taken pictures or had the locals take pictures and
once they got home they go gosh this would make a great fundraising
picture. I actually had to stop them, one of my groups at my university
wanted to make a coffee table book of all these nasty pictures to raise
money. I said wait a minute when these pictures were being taken, before
they were taken did you guys explicitly state this and have signed releases
or evidence of global consent? [George]

148

To address this issue, Michael’s Humanitarian Engineering NGO has developed “strong
child protection policies, and photopolicies.” These policies are based on a principle of
reciprocity for which if something would not be allowed in the home country (e.g.,
“taking photos of strangers’ kids” [Michael]), it should not be allowed in the country
where the HE project is being undertaken.
While the considerations shared by George and Michael were specific to taking
pictures, the same considerations may also apply when gathering or sharing any sort of
data. Therefore, engineers are strongly advised to gather informed consent forms or at
least be as transparent as possible regarding how information being gathered will be used.
6.4 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I reported the results of analyzing the comments that participants shared
with me when prompted to review a sample of 20 methods. In general, the participants
did not use most of the methods, but were familiar with many of them, and/or had used
similar methods. This familiarity and field experience with similar methods allowed them
to provide many useful insights that while most of the time where specific to the methods,
they may inform any interaction that engineers have with community members.
One of the most beneficial aspects of using these methods is that it helps position
engineers as learners rather than experts. According to George, for example, the most
important thing when using these methods is that engineers need to be “educated or
taught or informed by the community.” Creating this engineers-as-learner situation shows
respect for and appreciation of local knowledge and it helps instill strong and long-lasting
relationships, which are considered the spine of success in sustainable HE projects, as
reported in more detail in the next chapter.

149

However, a number of factors limit the productive use of these methods. First,
there are many practical limitations in using these methods. The engineers may need
materials that are not readily available or could incur costs to the community. Further, the
community members may not have the time or might not be willing to participate in these
methods. Moreover, cultural and communication differences may limit the extent to
which engineers and community members can interact, or could create confusion.
Additionally, engineers need to take into deep consideration ethical issues related to
collecting and sharing information related to the community and are strongly advised to
ask for informed consent and IRB approval. Finally, many of these methods requires
various degrees of expertise and awareness, therefore training interventions before
actually going in the fields could maximize the benefits from using these methods.
A few of the themes that I reported in this chapter also align with and expand on
many of the concept discussed in chapter 4. For instance, the practitioners provided many
examples of techniques that can be used to build trusted relationships, which was listed as
a major guiding principle in chapter 4 (4.1.4). Moreover, the practitioners confirmed the
benefits of creating multidisciplinary teams (4.1.5), because non-engineers may be more
familiar with methods reported in chapter 5 and may have a different set of skills that
could support the effective use of these methods. Many of the challenges reported in this
chapter additionally suggest that engineers need to develop many of the competencies
reported in chapter 4 (4.3). For instance, communication-related challenges in using the
methods imply that engineers need to develop strong contextual listening and
communication skills in order to use the methods appropriately (4.3.3). Cultural

150

challenges also require that engineers develop an ability to navigate and adapt to cross-
cultural differences (4.3.2).
In sum, the participants shared many interesting and transferable insights
regarding the use of the methods I presented to them. More generally, all the methods
presented in Chapter 5 may have the potential to provide many advantages to support the
long-term sustainability of a project, as long as all the aforementioned challenges are
taken into consideration. Creating a multidisciplinary and diverse team may also facilitate
using the methods and addressing all related challenges. In the next chapter, I report on
some other themes that emerged from the analysis of the interviews and that provide
other insights related to different aspects that could facilitated community participation in
humanitarian engineering and similar projects.

151

CHAPTER 7. THE SOCIOTECHNICAL NATURE OF HUMANITARIAN
ENGINEERING
In this chapter, I report the results of the thematic analysis on the first part of the
interviews, which focused more broadly on the interviewees’ approach to HE projects, as
well as their struggles and successes. The analysis led to the development of three
broader themes that are described in sections 7.1-7.3 of this chapter and in Table 7.1.
The first major theme focused on the participants’ conceptions of the nature of
HE practice. They in fact shared statements and observations that elucidated the core
aspects that constitute the practice of HE (see section 7.1). The other themes are two
major and related aspects of HE practice that emerged recurrently from the analysis and
further demonstrate the sociotechnical nature of HE. The first of these two aspects relates
to building trusting relationships with community members and project partners. Within
this theme, participants talked about: 1) the importance and benefits of trust (section
7.2.1), 2) the importance of having a strong project partner (7.2.2), and 3) the importance
of taking the time to engage in social interactions with community members and project
partners (7.2.3). The second aspect instead focused on the idea of using an asset- or
strength-based approach to HE (7.3), which is based on recognizing that communities
possess extremely valuable knowledge and expertise (7.3.1). In the following sections, I
provide more details and relevant quotes regarding these emergent themes.

152

Table 7.1. Code and Associated Examples
Codes Example quotes
Definitions of
Humanitarian
Engineering
“Engineers Without Borders is 80% sitting there listening
and maybe 20% actual engineering” [Emily Wigley]
Building Trusting
Relationships

Importance of trust “Without trust you cannot build and without trust no one is listening” [Marissa Jablonski]
Local partner “We follow the lead of our community partner for once.” [Robert]
Social interactions “We arrange to be there, and we arrange to have a meal together.” [Mark Henderson]
Asset-Based Approach “we look at what the community is doing well, rather than focus on the deficit and the negative” [Michael]
Local knowledge
“There’s a person who’s very handy at Ak’Tenamit who is
able to rig things up to make things work, and does do those
kind of things sometimes to implement.” [Robin Semer]
7.1 The Nature of Humanitarian Engineering
During the conversations with my participants, many of them shared definitions and
insights that elucidate the nature of HE. At the beginning of our conversation, Ken
Kastman shared with me his own definition of HE:
I would say humanitarian engineering is “the process of developing and
implementing engineering solutions for basic human and community
needs, primarily in developing countries, and is based on a functional life-
cycle approach.”
He later explained that by “functional life-cycle” he meant “a rational, low-cost, low-
maintenance, sustainable solution.” This definition aligns very well with the extant
literature on HE that I reviewed in Chapter 2. While talking about his work in Mexico
and Honduras, he shares observations that reveal that HE entails much more than

153

traditional engineering work. Reflecting on his experiences, he noted that “engineering is
the easy part” of what he does and that the cultural issues are the most difficult:
Cultural issues are really the hardest humanitarian engineering issues to
solve. The engineering part is the easy part.
Aligning with this observation, he further adds. “the listening and communicating are the
real key factors to making humanitarian engineering projects work well.” These types of
observations were not uncommon among my participants.
Emily Wigley also recognizes the importance of listening and explains that
listening is the larger part of what she does on the field:
I often say, Engineers Without Borders is 80% sitting there listening and
maybe 20% actual engineering.
Likewise, David Frossard states that “the engineering is the easy part of this” and
that “the problem is the cultural side of it.” Similarly, while talking about developing a
gravity-fed water distribution system, Marissa Jablonski admits that the technical part is
not “rocket science,” but that all “the other stuff” (i.e., the social aspects) are the ones that
matter the most:
the engineering part, come on…, gravity… right, water will always flow
down the hill. So a pipe, then you replace a pipe with a stronger pipe,
like…, this is not rocket science. That’s not what we are learning. Yeah,
that’s important, but it is not, it is all the other stuff that matters.
Along the same line, Emily Wigley recognizes that “long term relationships” are what
makes things work best, a concept that is also stressed by Kevin Passino:

154

the relationships are the hard things to build. In the end, the technology is
just one little thing. The relationships you have to develop are crucial for
the whole process, getting it started and then – the old saying is, “nothing
gets done except on the back of relationships.” That’s true.
Building trusted relationships is in fact a very important component of these projects,
because, without trust, cultural and communicational issues likely cannot be overcome.
The interview excerpts shared so far demonstrate that the practice of HE extends
far beyond the technical and it integrates both the technical and the social. This
introduces complexities that engineers cannot solve alone with the traditional engineering
way of framing and solving problems. Therefore, in addition to use methods from
different disciplines (like those reported in Chapter 5), it becomes very important to take
an inter-disciplinary approach to HE. For instance, Mark Henderson explained that a key
feature of their approach to HE is that it must be multi-disciplinary:
One feature of the methodology is that engineers can’t do it all, because
you need multi-disciplinary approach, typically, to problems. You need
humanities people, you need business people usually, you need engineers,
you need anthropologists.
Many interviewees also support the need for multi-disciplinary team. Gary Burniske,
especially, points out that while it might be useful for engineers to gain expertise in
addressing the social aspects of these projects, having people on the team who specialize
in these aspects can be much more productive:
the social sides can be extremely complex and hard to understand, and so
if you have people that specialize in that area, they can help provide the

155

guidance. It’s not that engineers can’t learn it as they go along and if
they’re doing a number of community projects to acquire a lot of those
skills, but particularly until they’ve had that opportunity, I think it’s
important for them to engage sociologists, in particular, are quite good. It
could be public health specialists, depending upon the program. You could
have anthropologists.
In sum, while developing low-cost, low-maintenance solutions is important, the
real struggle is to build trusted relationships, which in turn allow for better
communication and in the end ensure the sustainability of a project. Additionally, as
explained later in this chapter, trusted relationships allow moving from a needs-based to
an assets/strengths-based approach, which is much more empowering for the community
and increase the chance that solutions will be sustainable.
7.2 Building Trusted Relationships
As it emerged from the quotes reported in the previous section, building relationships is a
core aspect of HE practice and therefore it is worth exploring further. In the next sections,
I first report on the importance and benefits of building trust, as it was shared by the
study participants. Then, I specifically focus on the importance of the relationship
between engineers and local project partners. Finally, I report examples of social
interactions that the interviewees described as helpful for building trust.
7.2.1 The Importance and Benefits of Building Trust with Community Partners
The importance of building trusted relationships with project partners and community
members emerged from the words of many of the interviewees. For example, Robin

156

Semer observes that to ensure success it is important to go beyond the resource
transaction and to make sure to establish trust with the community:
I think it’s a good idea to have a relationship, and not have it be all just
business and a monetary transaction. I think that trust is an important part
of making a project like this successful.
Trust enables genuine collaboration that is sustained through meaningful communication
and thus enables a project to be successful. A lack of trust would instead make it
impossible to get anything accomplished:
Without trust you cannot build and without trust no one is listening. The
trust goes between the three groups. And you can’t skip one of them. You
cannot be the outsiders who are untrusted. [Marissa Jablonski]
Marissa Jablonski came to this conclusion by observing a project that led to a solution
that was never used. She describes a project she witnessed in which the outsiders did not
establish trust with the community and they built a bridge that the community did not
want and still have not used.
Likewise, Emily Wigley observes that if engineers do not have the trust of their
partners they will never get the necessary feedback to understand whether the project
they are proposing makes sense for the community:
You need to have confidence that what you are proposing is acceptable. I
don’t have a great way of assessing that other than having trust in the
relationships. If you are not getting feedback then that’s probably a bad
sign.

157

Emily learned this lesson through experience. In fact, she recalls that when trying to
install a water pump in a spring they had everybody on board, except a group of local
woman who did not show much enthusiasm regarding the proposed solution. In fact,
Emily and her teammates were not receiving good feedback from that group of women
and could not understand what the issue was. Thus, they decided they did not want to
continue with the project until they understood what was going on:
All the main groups seemed on board except for this women’s group.
They wouldn’t really – we just weren’t getting a positive response from
them. They seemed hesitant and they were like, “Yeah, okay.” The project
team felt that they could not continue until they had a better understanding
of what this women group’s concerns were.
It took Emily Wigley and her teammates about two years of visiting the community in
order to establish the needed trust that allowed the women to finally open up and share
their concerns:
They spent another, I want to say two years, going down there, once or
twice a year, just to meet with this women’s group to try understand what
their concerns were. It took that much time for them to eventually tell us
their concerns.
When finally the women shared their concerns, Emily Wigley and her teammates found
out that the group of women did not like the solution because it would take away one of
their weekly social times, which was very important to them:
The women told us that they used this spring to wash their clothes. For
this women’s group, the only social time that they really had every week is

158

when they washed their clothes together, which their Moms had done,
their Grandmas had done. They all used the spring.
Once they realized how important that social time was for this group of women, Emily
and her teammates proposed to build a laundry area next to water pump, so that the
women would still have that social time. The women liked that idea and Emily and her
teammates ended up building a laundry area close to the water pump:
We asked them, “What if we built you a laundry area on the outside of the
water tanks, could we build you just a specific laundry place where you
can still gather, you can still do your laundry, so that you have somewhere
to go but the pump doesn’t get damaged?” They were thrilled, we ended
up doing that and it all worked out. That took two years and it was all just
like relationship building.
Without having spent the time to build the relationship, Emily and her teammates would
have not being able to install a sustainable solution, because the group of women would
have not communicated openly with Emily and her teammates.
As is well illustrated in Emily Wigley’s story, one of the greatest benefits of
having trusted relationships with community members is that it facilitates maintaining
more open communication with them. When trust is established, the community feels
more comfortable to express their needs and opinions and is enabled to influence deeply
the project activities and decisions.
Another example related to Marissa Jablonski’s interactions with a community
clearly shows the benefits of maintaining open communication with community members.
In this particular situation, Marissa Jablonski and her students had developed the

159

preliminary design of a gravity-fed water system for the village of Quejchip in Guatemala.
The village was divided in two parts: the lower where the parents and elders lived and the
higher where the younger families lived. The new water system would have supplied
water independently to the higher part of the village, as the lower was already attached to
another spring:
They had half of the water system already, in the lower part of their
village, but their children were now adults and moving up the mountain
from their parents. So, Quejchip purchased a spring above those new
houses and then the idea was to have our chapter design a gravity-fed
water system that piped the new spring just to the new homes, and the
parents who lived below would still use the old spring.
Yet when Marissa Jablonski and her team presented this idea, the community did not
receive the proposed idea with great enthusiasm. However, because Marissa Jablonski
and her team had established a trusted relationship with the community, the community
felt comfortable to share their concern. The community explained that they did not like
the design because the new system would not allow diverting water to the lower part of
the community in case the older spring dried:
They said “you have here saying that everybody up top gets the new water
and everybody down below gets the old water”. And we said “yeah” and
they said “but what if a spring dries up?” And we said “well then half the
village gets water” and they said “oh that’s terrible! That’s our parents or
our children. So, why don’t we connect them both so everybody shares
one water?”

160

Listening to the community concerns, Marissa Jablonski and her team redesigned the new
system so that it would connect to the old system and distribute water in the other part of
the village in case of emergency. Receiving the candid feedback from the community was
possible only because they maintained opportunities for open discussion thanks to the
strong relationship with their local partner.
Finally, with trust, it is possible to build community’s buy-in or ownership, which
should be the ultimate goal of any project. David F. observed that his goal is to “become
obsolete,” because if the community does not own a solution, the community will always
be dependent on foreigners to come and fix what they have left behind:
I’ve seen this everywhere. Outside development agencies come in. They
will drill a borehole. They’ll build a bridge. They’ll build a schoolhouse.
Then something goes wrong. The roof blows off in a typhoon, and [the
community members] say, “Well, where are the Germans to come back
and fix their school building? When are the people that drilled this
borehole going to come back and fix their well?” The problem that
everybody has with development is the problem of buy-in, and the
problem of ownership.
In sum, even if trust is not a typical object of interest for engineers, it was
often seen as one of the most fundamental factors for facilitating higher levels of
community participation. Therefore, it becomes very important for engineers to
create trust with strong project partners (7.2.2) and to foster trust through
engaging in social interaction (section 7.2.3).

161

7.2.2 Strong Project Partner
For the participants, it is particularly important to build strong relationships with a local
project partner, like local champions, local NGOs, and international organizations with a
strong on-the-ground presence. For instance, when asked about success factors, Robert
shared that having a strong project partner with whom you can have open and frank
discussions is very important:
Attributes that I see are important that I’ve come to learn over the years is
a good partner. Not just a partner that they want you to work with them
but a partner that can tell you what’s not going well and we need to
change this.
Marissa Jablonski as well recognized the importance of her project partner and the trusted
relationship she has with him. She explained that her project partner is able to act as a
broker between the community members and Marissa Jablonski and her team, because he
is able to listen patiently to both sides. She concludes by recognizing that her project
partner is so important that “if [he] dies the whole system falls.”
Ken Kastman experienced first hand the difference between having and lacking a
local champion. He observed that the main difference between a project in Honduras and
another in Mexico was that in Mexico he worked with a local champion that was really
committed to the project and the community. His champion would take care of many
aspects of the project while Ken Kastman and his team could not be present:
The communication was a little bit more difficult in the Honduras project
than the Mexican project. I think it’s because we had such a strong local
champion on the Mexican project. If we ran into some issues, then she

162

would get on the phone to her relatives and talk it through, work out what
was the issue, and what was the answer. We didn’t have that same level of
champion in Honduras.
Struggles to maintain a strong local partner can also occur when a community is
somewhat unstable, as it is hard to maintain a relationship when people leave and do not
come back. This is what Robin Semer and her team experienced when the people with
whom they had built relationships had left the community:
because a number of the people that we had those relationships with are
now gone, and we never had quite the exact same experience with some of
the new people as we had with the old. We’re having to build new
relationships over and over again and are not there enough to do it. There’s
enough of a kernel there that we still have, but not all the players are the
same.
Finally, committed project partners ensure that there is always somebody locally
who can test and monitor a solution and work as an intermediary. For instance, one of the
greatest challenges for Mark Henderson was that he and his team cannot stay long
enough in the community, as he believes that the positive impact on a community is a
direct function of time and trust:
The amount of impact you have is a function of a lot of things, including
how long you’re in the community and how much trust you have with the
community members.

163

However, he shared that he was very excited and hopeful for a new partnership with a
Peace Corps volunteer because he believes that the Peace Corp volunteer can be the
project partner that he was missing in previous projects:
Now we’re partnering with the Peace Corps, because Peace Corps
volunteers are present in their community twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week for twenty-seven months. They are passionate, they are
committed to that community, they are fluent in English and the local
language, and they understand both cultures … our culture, and the culture
of the community. It’s a really a good way for us to be present virtually,
sort of, in that community for a long period of time.
In sum, the local project partner can be very helpful because that person
can work as an intermediary between foreigners and the community and can
support the project and maintain the partnership when engineers leave.
7.2.3 Social Interactions
While building trusted relationship is very important, it is not always simple and can take
time. As discussed in chapter 6, there are few methods, like participatory mapping, that
can help create better dynamics between outsiders and the local community. However,
many interviewees agreed that it very important to take time to partake in social
interactions with the community. Emily Wigley explains that she learned this through
experience. At the beginning, she did not budget time for building relationships, but had
to do it anyway because she recognized the importance of it:
When we started in Kenya and we made our itinerary for the trip –
relationship building wasn’t something that we had budgeted time for. We

164

did it anyway because it became readily apparent that it was important, but
we didn’t budget the time that it was taking to meet and talk to people. It
all worked out because as soon as we did that, then other things went a bit
faster.
Since her project in Kenya, she made sure that she would always budget the time to build
relationships even if she still feels like she is not really getting much done:
In subsequent projects we budgeted significantly more time to just sit and
meet with people even if it feels like it’s doing nothing. I think that’s the
biggest change. Especially the first day or two you are there, budgeting at
least half a day if not the whole day, just going around, meeting people,
sitting in peoples’ houses, having people talk to you, getting introduced to
people. Budgeting that upfront so you can develop those relationships as
well as have a more accurate estimation for the time you have to do
engineering work or project assessment work.
Aligned with Emily Wigley’s thinking, Robert makes sure to spend 3 to 4 weeks in the
community each time he goes to visit the community, which provide him with the
flexibility to attend cultural events:
[Staying 3 to 4 weeks] gives us the leeway particularly on some Saturdays
or Sundays to do some cultural events so we don’t have to work on the
project. Usually we are there during the Independence Day celebration, so
we’ll go participate in the parades and the activities.
Other interviewees also shared that they attend different types of social events and make
sure to spend time with the community in order to build relationship. For instance, during

165

one project, David Frossard shared that he had students go to a wedding or a baseball
game rather than surveying the area, because those social interactions would be much
more valuable:
But yeah, the social aspect, like when we arrived in Nicaragua that day
and they said it’s either a wedding or baseball, I said, “Great, this is great.
Let’s absolutely go to the wedding, let’s go to the baseball.” That was, to
me, a lot more important than going to the site and start surveying with
our laser sights the future bridge site.
Attending social events can be very productive indeed. David Munoz explained that the
first project he started in Honduras originated from a conversation that he initiated with
the mayor of the city during a 50th wedding anniversary celebration they both attended.
However, it is not necessary to wait for special social events to occur in order to
build relationships. It may be enough to engage in the daily life of the community
members. For instance, both Mark Henderson and Robin Semer try to sit down and have
lunch with community members on a daily basis. For Robin Semer, being integrated with
the community is very important:
So we would line up with the students to eat lunch with them, so we would
be on the line in their cafeteria and just sit down on their benches and eat
that way. I’ve been with other EWB groups that are a little more peripheral
than we are. We tried to be as integrated as we could be integrated, when
we went on our trips.
Ken Kastman also shares the same line of thought and he also engages with the
community in many informal ways:

166

We like to interact and try to be a part of the community, to stay in the
community, to eat their food, to sleep in their beds, to get together at
community meetings, to play soccer with them, and play with the kids at
night.
For Andrew, playing soccer with community members is another great way to allow the
community to relax around them and create a strong working relationship:
Soccer then is a way for the community to say, “We have things that we
can do better than you.” That then allows them to reach down to us and
supply things for us. “We are out of breath, do you have some water? We
need some things from you, can you help us North Americans out?” That
then sets a good social interaction dynamic where we are then endeared to
them and they are endeared then to us.
In sum, building trusted relationships is a key feature of successful and sustainable
projects. It requires considerable time to build trust. Engineers thus have to make sure
that they budget this time upfront and should not be worried about being flexible with
their plans in order to attend social events like weddings and other local festivities that
will ultimately make things go more smoothly. Having trust then allows them to maintain
open communication with the community and to switch from a needs-based approach to
an asset/strengths-based approach.
7.3 Using an Asset/Strengths-Based Approach
The idea of using an asset- or strength-based approach emerged especially from the
interviews with Andrew, Emily Wigley, and Michael, but many aspects of this approach
were also present in some of the ideas of other participants.

167

In talking about his approach to HE, Andrew explains that he prefers to follow an
“Asset-Based Community Development” approach. He explains that this approach is not
“a defined process,” bur rather it is enabled “though developing organic relationships
within the community.” The main characteristic of this approach is that it focuses on
finding out about a community’s assets. He further explains that an asset-based
community development approach helps discover assets that might not be apparent and
shows engineers that the community may be ultimately the main resource to drawn on:
We usually think in terms of money to buy things, tools to build things
and materials to build them from. When you look at a project that way,
they community looks pretty poor. However, when we start looking at
assets like natural nearby resources, close-knit family structures, a strong
work ethic, strong social and spiritual structures that can motivate and
mobilize the work force, and cooperation from the local government, etc.
We soon see the community’s contribution to the project taking on a much
bigger role than our own.
Similarly, Michael explains that the NGO he works for prefers to use a strength-based
approach, which is very aligned with Andrew’s asset-based approach. He explains that
his organization begins projects by focusing on the resources and the expertise already
present in the community, because of the risks associated with looking only at the
negatives:
We use [an approach] called strength-based approach, where we look at
what the community is doing well, rather than focus on the deficit and the

168

negative, and the barriers, and the problems, because that can be quite
disempowering.
With an asset- or strength-based approach, rather than looking at what a community is
lacking, engineers can instead start from looking at what the community already has and
is doing, and supporting them in their endeavors:
Once we identify what people are doing in their own community then we
can begin to ask, “Is there a way that we can help enable them to do more?”
[Emily Wigley]
This way of thinking can be much more productive and can also lead to much more
diverse projects than though a needs-based approach:
We found in some of our longer-term projects that we can move to an
asset based assessment instead and get much more diverse projects than
just doing a needs-based assessment. Through asset-based assessment
we’ve identified projects like a tilapia farm, solar medical waste
incinerators, sand harvesting, and business development.
In sum, engineers tend to focus on problems to be solved, which, as suggested by
many participants can foster a deficit mindset, which in turn can become very
discouraging and disempowering for the community. To address this issue, a few
participants proposed to reframe their approach to humanitarian engineering by switching
to an asset-based approach, which holds the assumption that the community is rich of
local expertise from which to build on.

169

7.3.1 Local Expertise
As illustrated in the previous paragraphs, the key aspect of using an asset-based approach
is to recognize the value of local knowledge and expertise and to integrate these resources
into every aspect of doing a project. However, recognizing the value of local knowledge
and expertise was not a theme that emerged only from the interviews of the participants
who mentioned explicitly using an asset-based approach, but it was present in many other
interviews. For instance, during his travel in a rural region of an African country, George
noticed that although the houses looked very humble and technically simple, in realty
they were quite sophisticated from a thermal transfer point of view:
if you go in there and take a look, you realize that the homes even though
they are mud huts are built slightly differently every five meters of
elevation. The walls have a certain shape, they get the mud from a certain
place, they orient them in a certain way, they design their long drops in a
certain way. It’s really pretty exclusive when you talk about thermal
transfer.
These details regarding the houses of that specific village demonstrates that there are
people in the community that might have lots of expertise that is very valuable for
building infrastructure. This is, in fact, what Ken Kastman observed when he worked on
a construction project in Central America. He noticed that because concrete mixers do not
usually exist or they are usually broken, the local population came up with a very
effective way to mix concrete on the ground by hand:

170

They mix aggregate in a big circle, and they add water and they mix it
again using shovels. In the Central American countries, this is how they
build their homes, and they’re quite good at it.
In her project in Guatemala, Robin Semer and her team similarly rely heavily on a local
handyman to rig things and make things work. She observes that his talent is very useful
for many different aspects of the projects:
There’s a person who’s very handy at Ak’Tenamit who is able to rig things
up to make things work, and does do those kind of things sometimes to
implement. He’s somebody who has a lot of talent, and does go out of his
way to make … to fix things and make things work better. I would say that
he winds up putting together things that we’re impressed with and that
help out the project.
Yet, the most admirable example of the great contribution of local expertise come
from a story that Andrew shared. In order to build a bridge, Andrew and his team were
excavating in the side of the riverbank to construct a cofferdam (“essentially a dug out
area that was deeper than the river bottom in order to construct a concrete abutment
foundation” [Andrew]). This was a very tedious and messy process that “required a lot of
persistence to remove water faster than it was leaking into our site” [Andrew]. One
morning, this became very challenging because “the excavation pit was full of water like
a swimming pool” [Andrew]. In order to solve the problem, he laid out a plan to use a gas
powered pump to pump the water out; a process that would have taken a few hours to
accomplish. When he shared the idea with the local community members that were
helping out with the construction, the locals showed their expertise by using a siphon

171

technique that solved the problem in a fraction of the time that Andrew had originally
predicted:
They placed one end of the pipe downstream of our cofferdam and the
other end of the pipe in our cofferdam. They then filled the PVC pipe full
of water and with a signal, told the man holding the downstream end of
the pipe to release the pipe opening. As soon as he did, the men standing
in the cofferdam pool of water thrust their end of the pipe into the pool
and wouldn’t you know, the pipe sucked the water completely out of the
pool in just about 20 minutes. [Andrew]
Impressed by the ingenuity of the locals’ technique, he realized the value of integrating
local knowledge into his projects and began using an asset-based approach.
7.4 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I reported on the themes that emerged from the thematic analysis of
participants’ responses to broader questions related to their approach to HE. The thematic
analysis revealed the sociotechnical and interdisciplinary nature of HE projects. Many of
the participants explicitly commented that the technological aspects of these projects are
the easiest part to solve. The greatest struggles are instead related to cultural differences,
communication challenges, and the problem of ownership, issues that also appeared in
the previous chapters. Participants generally agreed that building trusted relationships is
one the most important aspects to ensure the success and sustainability of a project, a
theme that has also merged in chapter 4 from the analysis of the collected literature. Trust
enables community members to express their opinions and desires freely, which is
extremely important to make sure that any implemented solution reflects the desires of

172

the community members. Trust also enables engineers to use an assets- or strengths-
based approach, which relies on integrating the knowledge and expertise of the local
community. However, trust does not automatically mean that engineers recognize
community members as experts. In fact, an asset-based approach requires some of the
skills reported in chapter 4 (4.3), especially including a mindset that allows engineers to
see community members as “actors in their own development instead of viewing them as
victims” (Bayars et al., 2009, 2714).
However, building trust is not a simple task. In chapter 6, I discussed some of the
methods that many participants found very helpful to build trust. For instance,
participatory mapping is a very useful tool in order to allow community members to get
more comfortable around foreign engineers. Yet, many participants explained that the
best way to build trust is to take the time to be with the community. Some participants
talked about having meals and playing soccer with the community as very important tools
of community interactions. Others expressed the importance of attending social events
and other local festivities, like weddings and other types of celebrations. Therefore, when
planning to visit the community, it becomes very important that engineers budget the
time to interact informally with community members, even if the trips are as short as one
week. In fact, focusing only on project activities might not allow them to build the trust
that is needed to develop sustainable solutions.
Looking more broadly at the four finding chapters, it emerges clearly that in HE
the social aspects are as consequential as the technical aspects. Engineers need to learn
how to navigate the social aspects and interact with the community. Chapter 5 provided a
framework of formal techniques that can help engineers and other professional navigate

173

the social world of HE and meaningfully interact with the community. This last chapter
revealed that in addition to formal methods, there are many informal strategies that can
do and need to specific training. Most importantly among these informal strategies is the
idea of taking time to attend in social events (e.g., weddings and festivals) and participate
in the daily life of the community, like by playing soccer, having meals, and stay at the
community members houses. In the next chapter, I summarize and discuss the findings in
chapter 4 to 7 as they related to the two research questions and the broader literature. I
also present recommendations, discuss limitations, and propose ideas for future areas of
research.

174

CHAPTER 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Humanitarian engineering programs are becoming very popular in many U.S. institutions,
as well as worldwide. However, the projects undertaken by participants in such programs
often involve considerable tensions between the needs of students and those of the
communities the programs are trying to serve. This tension can be very problematic,
especially in light of colonialist historical legacies and many documented instances of
failed projects (Mazzurco et al., 2014; Riley, 2007). This dissertation attempts to address
this tension by investigating principles, mindsets, and especially methods that may
facilitate community participation so that these programs may benefit partner
communities as much as they benefit students. Specifically, the goal of this dissertation is
to create the foundation for a learning platform, which students, faculty, and potentially
even professionals can use to learn about methods and strategies to facilitate the
participation of underserved community in each phase of the HE design process.

175

The research questions associated with this goal were:
1. What are the key characteristics of specific design methods that have been
used/proposed in the HE and related literature?
a. How do they differ in terms of community participation?
b. How do they differ in terms of their function?
c. In what phase of the design process are the methods being used?
d. What other salient characteristics distinguish one method from another?
2. What are other conditions (e.g., philosophical commitments, culture of the
community, engineers’ skills and mindsets, and others) that are not specific to any
design stage, but may facilitate meaningful community participation?
In section 8.1, I explain how the findings reported in Chapters 4 through 7 help answer
the two research questions, and I relate the findings to the broader literature on HE and
related fields. In section 8.2, I discuss other relevant and interesting themes that were not
directly related to the research questions, but that emerged mostly from the interviews
with the 14 participants. In each section, I provide recommendations for individuals who
are interested in HE and similar projects. In section 8.3, I present my dissemination plan
and ideas to translate my research into practice. Finally, in section 8.4, I discuss possible
ideas for future research.

176

8.1 Discussion of Findings
In this section, I first discuss the findings related to RQ1 and I relate them to other
literature. Then I do the same for the findings related to RQ2.
8.1.1 Discussion of Findings Related to RQ1
To answer the first research question, I dove into the literature to examine what strategies
and methods have been suggested by other authors. First, as reported in Chapter 4, I
looked more generally at what types of methods had been used and suggested in 48
papers that I acquired using a qualitative systematized review process. I clustered these
48 papers based on six different groups of methods. The first group comprised
publications that mentioned traditional social science research methods, such as
interviews, surveys, participant observations, and focus groups. Social science methods
were the most commonly mentioned among the 48 papers, and they were also very
common among the 14 participants I interviewed after reviewing the literature. In fact,
virtually all participants reported doing house-to-house surveys and interviews. In
addition to social science research, the 48 papers I reviewed discussed using other types
of methods as well. A second, popular type of method involved use of design tools.
Design tools build off traditional social science research methods and apply them
specifically to the design process. These sources cited human-centered design techniques
like those collected in IDEO (2014)’s toolkit. A third group of papers, as reviewed in
Chapter 4, reported using methods that derive from the Participatory Action Research
tradition and specifically the more critical tradition of educator Paulo Freire. This group
included methods like Rapid/Participatory Rural Appraisal and Theater of the Oppressed
among the many ways of facilitating community participation.

177

The fourth group of papers was clustered together, because they all had the
common characteristics of allowing the identification and characterization of
stakeholders. These included publications that presented methods like the arena model
(Bowen and Acciaioli, 2015), which suggests a process to develop a sophisticated map of
all stakeholders involved. A fifth set of papers were grouped together because they
presented methods that provided ways to evaluate options and to make decisions
regarding different aspects a project. The sixth cluster included a small collection of
papers that focused on strategies that would help engineers and other professionals raise
awareness of their own beliefs, biases, and pre-existing understandings.
However, grouping the methods based on the six types or “families” provides
only a general overview of the possible types of methods that humanitarian engineers
could use in their projects. Moreover, there are many overlaps among the six types. For
instance, social science research methods like interviews, focus groups, and participant
observation are also included in human-centered design toolkits (e.g. IDEO) and used in
participatory action research projects (e.g., Beebe, 2011). In sum, the analysis that led to
the development of Chapter 4 provided a broad view of what methods have been
used/proposed in HE and related literature. This allowed me to answer my first research
question only partially, and a more complete answer to my research question was
obtained through further analysis of 64 methods that were collected from the original 48
papers and other snowballed sources.
The analysis of the 64 methods led to the development of a use-inspire framework
that classifies methods along two main dimensions (as reported in Chapter 5). The first
dimension is levels of community participation, which comprises three distinct levels:

178

passive, consultative, and co-constructive. Methods in the passive level comprise
techniques that do not directly involve community members. Yet even if those methods
do not include community members, they are still potentially valuable methods that may
provide many advantages. For instance, although IDEO’s “Beginners’ Mind” does not
involve community members, it can help engineers, designers, students, and others
develop a mindset that may facilitate interactions with community members. In
consultative methods, community members are involved as informants, who are
consulted by the outsiders. The typical consultative methods are interviews and focus
groups. The third and final level of community participation is co-constructive. This level
includes methods in which community members collaborate to construct knowledge with
the facilitation of engineers. Participatory mapping (Almedom et al., 1997; Beebe, 2001;
Freudenberger, 2008; PeaceCorps, 2005) is a good example of a co-constructive method.
During this exercise, community members collaborate to create a map of their own
community, while facilitators provide directions and probe community members. The
three levels are ordered in a hierarchical spectrum from less participatory to more
participatory. However, this spectrum does not range from worst to best, as each level
provides its own advantages and limitations (as reported in Chapter 6 and further
discussed in section 8.1.2), and in any given project engineers could use methods
representing all three levels.
In the literature I found only one other example that classified design methods
based on considerations related to direct user involvement. The Helen Hamlyn Center for
Design presents 20 design methods to develop solutions for people with disabilities. For
each method, they provide four characteristics 1) the inputs and outputs, 2) stage of

179

design process, 3) designing for, with, or by, and 4) types of interaction (Helen Hamlyn
Center for Design, 2015). Their designing for, with, or by category is the one that is most
closely related to my levels of community participation. Therefore, it is worth discussing
how their framework differs from mine.
To begin, their “for people” category includes methods “in which designers study
and consult people in their role as experts in the design process” (Helen Hamlyn Center
for Design, 2015, para. 3). Next, their “with people” category comprises methods “in
which designers share the design process with people, who become active participants in
the work” (Helen Hamlyn Center for Design, 2015). Finally, their “by people” category
includes methods in “which designers act as facilitators to enable people to make their
own design decisions” (Helen Hamlyn Center for Design, 2015).
On one hand, their categorization of methods based on direct user involvement
has some similarities to the one proposed in this dissertation. For instance, their “by
people” category is well aligned with my “co-constructive” level because in both cases
designers act as facilitators. On the other hand, there are many differences between their
framework and mine. At first glance, their “for people” category would seem to match
with my passive level. For instance, they categorize the “empathy tool” as a “for people”
method. The empathy tool proposes that designers use “a simulation device to gain first-
hand insights into particular impairments or disabilities.” In this exercise, direct users do
not participate and therefore I would have classified it as passive. However, they also
classify interviews and focus groups as “for people,” which instead are categorized as
consultative in my framework. Therefore, while there might be some alignment between
the “by people” and co-constructive categories, the other categories do not match.

180

Additionally, based on their classification system, methods can be categorized under two
or three categories. For instance, their “Observation & Shadowing” tool is described as
both “for people” and “with people.” However, it is not clear what it means when a
method is classified under more than one type of interaction with direct users.
The second dimension that emerged from the analysis of the 64 methods is project
stages. Specifically, I clustered the methods in three stages: 1) problem framing and
planning, 2) information gathering, and 3) solution development. Each of project stage is
divided in sub-categories based on the functions of the methods. The problem framing
and planning stage includes methods that serve four different, but related goals: 1)
understanding a problem, 2) formulating objectives, 3) ranking problem or objectives,
and 4) planning project activities. The information gathering stage includes methods that
serve five different, but complementary goals: 1) fostering self-awareness, 2)
multipurpose, 3) understanding socio-cultural, political and historical context, 4)
identifying and characterizing stakeholders, and 5) mapping the community. The solution
development stage include only two sub-categories: 1) methods to ideate and prototype a
solution, and 2) methods to evaluate and select solutions. This categorization was
developed by clustering together methods based on their function rather than imposing a
pre-defined configuration of stages on the methods. Nonetheless, the resulting
categorization covers many of the more traditional design stages.
To understand further this dimension, it is worth comparing it with some existing
classifications. For instance, the Helen Hamlyn Center for Design (2016), as discussed
above, also classifies their twenty methods in terms of stages of design process.
Specifically, they suggest a classification system that comprises four different stages: 1)

181

discover, 2) define, 3) develop, and 4) deliver. The discover stage refers to “exploration-
and-understand,” which appears to be aligned with the information gathering phase. The
define stage focuses on the problem, which therefore might be aligned with the problem
framing and planning phase. The develop and deliver stage instead refers to designing
and producing the solution, which might be aligned with the solution development phase.
However, comparing my framework to theirs is difficult because while they propose four
stages, the description of all the 20 methods suggest that all are “discover” methods, even
“prototyping” (this may be due to a glitch in their website). Given the provided
information, our classification systems appear to be very similar, although mine provides
more nuances within each project stage category.
It is also worth comparing the project stages provided in this dissertation with the
design process for engineering for global development (EGD) proposed by Engineering
for Change (E4C). More specifically, E4C’s design process for EGD comprises five
stages: 1) plan, 2) learn, 3) design, 4) realize, and 5) sustain (Engineering For Change,
2016). The plan phase focuses on developing project goals and planning strategies to
achieve them, which seems aligned with my problem framing and planning phase,
although theirs is much more focused on planning instead of framing. Their learn phase is
clearly aligned with my information gathering phase as it includes considerations related
to customer and user knowledge and design ethnography. Their design phase is also well
aligned with my solution development phase as it looks specifically at conceptualizing
and prototyping solutions. The realize and sustain phases refer to activities aimed at
producing and then sustaining a solution, which were stages that none of the methods I
collected referred to.

182

Comparing my project dimensions with existing classifications provides a couple
of points of reflection regarding the usefulness of, as well as some gaps in, the proposed
framework. For instance, the alignment between my three stages and some of the stages
of E4C’s design process suggests that the framework reflects the typical process followed
by humanitarian engineers and therefore it can be closely related to practice and
integrated in existing models. Casting a wider net, the framework proposed here can
support the practice of a wider range of individuals involved in HE and similar projects,
including students, faculty, and professionals. Those individuals, in fact, could easily
access methods based on where they are in the project cycle and what specific tasks they
are trying to accomplish. For instance, if they need to learn more about all of the people
that might be involved directly or indirectly in a project, they could access “information
gathering methods” (section 5.2.2), and choose one or more methods in the function
group “to identify and characterize stakeholders” (section 5.2.2.3).
However, the comparison with existing traditional design cycles also reveals a
gap in the framework presented here. Specifically, the framework does not include
methods that belong to E4C’s realize and sustain phase. Moreover, the large majority
(77%) of the methods collected belong to the problem framing and gathering information
phases (27% and 50%), while only 15 methods (23%) belonged to the solution
development phase. These 15 methods also cover a small range of tasks, focusing only on
early ideation, prototyping, and solution selection, and the majority of these (9 out of 15)
were passive. However, they do not cover tasks usually associated with more advanced
phases of design and implantation of solutions. There are a few hypothetical reasons that
could explain this gap.

183

First, the gap might be due to limitations related to the literature review process
employed to retrieve the sources, although the large number of search strings and the
inter-reliability process help ensure that a large, representative sample of related literature
was collected. A second reason is that as the later stages of an engineering project
become more focused on the technical aspects of the solution, it may require a level of
technical expertise and access to laboratories that are not usually available in underserved
communities. The involvement of the community might then be limited to volunteered
labor. A third and related possible reason is that methods used during the later stages of a
project might be dependent to the specific solution being developed, while the collected
methods are independent of any specific solution. For instance, constructing a problem
tree may be beneficial to any project. Fourth, it is also possible that there are not formal
methods to involve community members in the later phases of a project and that their
involvement happens more informally and more on a consultative level. Finally, it is also
plausible that this lack could be associated with the historically dominant approach to
international development, namely, dropping in solutions and then leaving the
communities without considering long-term sustainability. At project’s end, outsiders
return home and the community members remain, so they know best how well the project
endured over time—not those back home writing articles for publication, especially if the
locals and outsiders lose contact, which often occurs over time.
Although the framework and collection of methods reported in this study might be
limited to the earlier phases of a project, it still provides many useful methods to make
sure that a partner community gets involved in a project. These methods can become very
useful in avoiding failures. In a previous study in which I analyzed cases of failed

184

projects (Mazzurco and Jesiek, 2014), I found that a primary reason that led to such
failures is that foreigners did not fully understand the context of their project. For
instance, in The Stranger’s Eye case study (Carlson, 1995), a foreign development
worker, Pierre, went to a village in Mali to install a mill that could be used to grind grain.
However, after a month of being in the village, Pierre found out that the village already
had a mill and that he was installing the mill directly across from the existing one:
Pierre came as a stranger to Kafinare, asking no questions. It was nearly a
month before he realized that he was putting a mill directly across the road
from the existing one. In true Kafinarian fashion, no one told him that we
already had one because he had not asked. When the truth eventually
dawned, he protested in some shock that he would never have dreamed of
running the enterprising villagers out of business, but then he plunged
ahead with the plans on ORB’s [an aid organization] drawing board
(Carlson, 1995).
Such an issue might have been prevented if Pierre had used community-mapping
methods like transect walks and participatory mapping. These methods could have shown
to Pierre the existence of the mill much earlier on, so that he could have changed his plan
and make sure that the solution he was installing was aligned with and respected the
context and needs of the community.
Failing to learn about the context of a project is not the only source of problems
that can lead to negative outcomes. Citing Hammer (1994), Riley (2007) provide the
following list of recommendations that international NGOs and other agencies should
take into consideration when undertaking international aid projects:

185

1. “Projects should be formulated in and by the communities that will ultimately
benefit” (p. 3).
2. “On-site feasibility studies must be undertaken before a project begins to ensure
that it has a chance of success” (p. 3).
3. “Autonomy and economic independence, and the ability to maintain or repair
technology are key factors in the long-term sustainability of any project” (p. 4).
4. “Projects require thorough market analyses that include an assessment of actual
production costs, and time people have available to do the required work” (p. 4).
5. “The appropriateness of a technology should be assessed for the specific
community in which it may be implemented. This requires being in the field with
the recipient community for some time” (p. 4).
6. “Flexibility is required so that the project can evolve over time” (p. 4).
7. “Responsibility does not end when the funding ends. The limitations on people’s
availability must be made known up front before a project begins.” (p. 4)
8. “Communication and networking are essential.” (p. 4)
9. “Insurance should be provided so that if a project fails the community does not
end up bearing debt” (p. 4).
10. “Know who each partner is in a project, and what they are interested in gaining
from the project. Groups that are established and cohesive are more likely to stay
together” (p. 4)
The set of methods provided in this dissertation address many of the recommendation
listed above. For instance, to make sure that the community takes part in the formulation
of a project (recommendation #1 above), humanitarian engineers can choose among the

186

consultative and co-consultative methods to understand a problem (section 5.2.1.1) and
rank objectives (section 5.2.1.3). To make sure the technology is appropriate to the
context of the specific community (recommendation #5), humanitarian engineers can
organize a participatory design session (IDEO, 2014), in which community members
would ideate and create prototypes of solutions.
In conclusion, the first phase of this doctoral study provides two major
contributions to the literature. First, it provides an extensive collections of methods that
support community participation in HE while at the same time addressing important
factors traditionally associated with the success of global development projects. Second,
it provides a framework that allows humanitarian engineers to select methods to use
based on the function of the method and the desired level of community participation.
The framework could also be used as a reflection tool. For instance, by looking at the
levels of community participation, humanitarian engineers could reflect on how they are
interacting with the community and potentially improve their interactions. Finally, while
having a set if methods can be very useful, methods are only one important part of HE
projects. In the next sections, I discuss other important considerations that emerged from
the interviews with the 14 practitioners who elected to participate in my study.
8.1.2 Discussion of Findings Related to RQ2
The second research question focused on understanding what conditions may be needed
to use the methods that I had collected in the first phase of the research and, more
generally, what other aspects might be important to facilitate community participation.
To answer this research question, I interviewed 14 practitioners who have extensive
experience in HE and similar projects. Nine participants were affiliated with universities,

187

while the other five were professionals who volunteer their time to work on HE projects
or were employed in international NGO focused on HE. During the interview, I shared 21
methods from the 64 that I collected and asked them to comment on their familiarity with
the methods, and to share their impression related to possible advantages and pitfalls
using these methods.
The participants used only a small portion of the methods I shared, but they
commented they had used methods that covered similar functions to those that I had
shared. The two participants that appeared to be the most familiar with the methods were
David Frossard and Gary Burniske, who were also the only two interviewees without
engineering degrees and with work experience through positions in international
development organizations (the Peace Corps and the Mercy Corps, respectively). Other
participants also admitted that they had benefited greatly from having team members with
diverse disciplinary and experiential backgrounds. This fact points out the helpfulness of
having a multi-disciplinary team, which was also one of the five principles that emerged
from analyzing the 48 papers I had collected during the first phase. In explaining their
model for sustainable HE, for example, Amadei et al. (2009) recognized that engineers
should team up with “sociologists, economists, anthropologists, public health experts, and
others” (p. 1095). Garff et al. (2013) also suggests that while having a set of methods that
help co-create solutions (like those presented in previous chapters), the participation of
social scientist would help engineers use these methods in more rigorous and systematic
ways. Consequently, including individuals from other disciplines and diverse
backgrounds is the first condition that would enable humanitarian engineers to use the
collected methods appropriately.

188

Furthermore, the participants also commented on some potential advantages of
some methods. The most popular among those methods was co-constructive participatory
mapping. In this method, a group of community members collaborate to create a map of
the community with the facilitation of development workers. Many participants reported
that this method can be a great icebreaker and help put the community at ease with the
foreigners. This, in turn, allows for building a strong relationship between foreigners and
community members. Robin Semer reported using a similar co-constructive method in
which her host community drew their vision of the sanitation system rather than a map.
However, the effect was the same of participatory mapping as it allowed Robin Semer
and her team to make the first steps toward building a trusted relationship with the
community partners. This finding suggests that co-constructive methods might be more
conducive to creating trust among all people involved in a project, because it involves
communities in a more active way and positions foreigners as learners rather than experts.
However, the interviews with the 14 participants also revealed four main
challenges associated with using some of these methods (as reported in Chapter 6). The
first challenge was associated with practical limitations of using co-constructive methods.
Some of these methods in fact may require materials like flip charts, pens, and physical
space that might not be always available. Another practical challenge is that they may
also require time that community members cannot realistically commit. Additionally, the
educational level of the community members may hinder their ability to participate, as
some participants commented that they had seen some of these methods used with
formally educated people. The second challenge is associated with communication
barriers. These barriers include both languages differences and choice of words in asking

189

questions. Translators can also create a communication barrier if they are not committed
to a project. The third challenge emerges from cultural differences from foreigners and
local community members. Such differences can influence the interpersonal interactions,
but can also determine the cultural appropriateness of using a method. For instance,
wealth ranking (Freudenberger, 2008) was considered generally inappropriate by many
participants. The last challenge concerned ethical considerations related to human
subjects research. These considerations were especially strong for methods that utilize
photos, like photovoice. The participants, in fact, advised following strong policies
related to informed consent and to get IRB approval before travelling.
The aforementioned challenges align with challenges reported in the participatory
design literature. For instance, Oyugi et al. (2008) share that participatory design in the
developing world may be challenged by power distance between host communities and
the designers, cultural and language barriers, inappropriateness of participatory design
techniques due to local values, and low literacy levels of host communities. In reflecting
on her design project with Cambodian children to create prosthetic legs, Hussain et al.
(2012) additionally shares four categories of challenges that align closely to those
reported by my participants: “1) human aspects, 2) social, cultural, and religious aspects,
3) financial aspects and timeframe, and 4) organizational aspects” (Hussain et al., 2012, p.
93). Similar to what was shared by my participants, Hussain et al. (2012) explain that
participating in design workshops was many times an unrealistic time commitment for
the locals, and that the local customs and religious beliefs limited participants’
willingness to share frank opinions with the designers.

190

In conclusion, while the first part of this research focused on classifying methods
to facilitate their use, the second phase explored the realities of using such methods.
Although I do not have definitive evidence, it appears that co-constructive methods might
be great icebreakers while helping to foster trust among foreigners and community
members. The co-constructive methods, however, possess many practical challenges.
Therefore, it might be useful to use co-constructive methods when establishing the
partnership and until trust has been established. Once there is trust between communities
and engineers, then less participatory methods can be used as the community will be
more inclined to express their thoughts frankly. Yet no matter the methods used,
engineers still have to address communication, cultural, and ethical challenges.
These challenges also suggest that humanitarian engineers should be properly
trained to use the methods collected and should develop some of the competencies that
were reported in Chapter 4 (section 4.3). Engineers should develop a humble mindset that
allows them to recognize the richness of expertise that exists in developing communities
(Aslam et al.; 2014; Bayars et al., 2009; Hilton et al., 2014; Leydens and Lucena, 2014;
Mattson and Wood, 2014; Vandersteen et al. 2009), and critical self-awareness to
continually examine one’s own behaviors and beliefs (Aslam et al., 2014; Hilton et al.,
2014; Hussain et al., 2012; Leydens and Lucena, 2014; Niesuma and Riley, 2010;
Pearson,1996; White, 1997). They should also develop strong cross-cultural and
communication skills (Hussain and Sanders, 2010; Murphy et al., 2009; Ogunyoku et al.,
2011), especially an ability to listen contextually (Leydens and Lucena, 2009, 2014).
Such abilities would allow engineers to use appropriately the methods presented in

191

Chapter 5. Yet, these competencies are not only limited to HE, but are also relevant to
engineering in general. For instance, NAE’s Engineer of 2020 mentions communication
competencies and high ethical standards as key attributes of the engineer of 2020.
8.1.3 Integrating Phase 1 and 2
As reported above, during phase 1 of this study I collected 64 methods from the literature
and I analyzed them in order to create a classification system. This process was very
useful to better understand the key characteristics of each method. However, it did not
allow me to understand some of the benefits and limitation of using each method on the
field. The second phase was meant to complement the first phase by collecting insights
from practitioners who had extensive experience working in humanitarian engineering
and similar projects. This last phase enabled me to understand limitations and benefits of
methods as expressed by practitioners.
In this section I show how the two phases can be integrated to create use-inspired
information sheets that provide more practical details about methods. In figure 8.1 I
provide a template of such an information sheet. Each information sheet features seven
pieces of information: 1) name of the method, 2) the purpose of the method, 3) a
visualization of the method, which could be a representation of the final outcome or a
representation of the process, 4) which project stage and participation level the method
belongs to, 5) a brief description of the process (i.e., steps), 6) insights (positive or
negative) from practitioners, and 7) links to original sources. Part one to five and seven
were gathered during phase 1, while part 6 was gathered during phase 2. The information
sheet, thus, presents most of the information a humanitarian engineer needs to have in
order to use the method appropriately. In figure 8.2 and 8.3, I show two examples of

192

information sheets, namely for the methods Wealth Ranking and Participatory Mapping. I
chose to represent these two methods because practitioners provided insights directly
related to these two methods, while they provided more general insights for other
methods. Future research may focus on gathering specific insights from practitioners for
each method so that similar information sheets can be created for all 64 methods.

Figure 8.1. Template of Information Sheet

193

Figure 8.2. Info Sheet for Wealth Ranking

194

Figure 8.3. Info Sheet for Participatory Mapping

195

8.1.4 Appropriateness of Methods
As I discussed in the first chapter of this dissertation, my goal was not only to collect
methods to involve community members but also to understand what conditions are
required to use the methods appropriately. While I do not have data to discuss the
appropriateness of every single method, my research allows me to provide a few
guidelines that may help engineers use methods more appropriately. To begin, the
interviews with practitioners and the review of literature stressed the importance of
building trusted relationships from the beginning of a project. Practitioners have also
identified co-constructive methods, such as Participatory Mapping, as good relationship
builders. Thus, it should be more appropriate to use co-constructive methods especially
(but not only) during the first interactions. However, co-constructive methods are also
subject to many practical limitations, especially because they may require more intensive
participation time from community members. Therefore, while co-constructive methods
can be very beneficial, engineers need to be very careful not to overuse them. Moreover,
if the relationship has already been established, it becomes more appropriate to use less
formalized and time-consuming methods.
Additionally, the practitioners also discussed communication, culture, and ethical
challenges related to using the methods. If these challenges are not properly addressed
and taken into account even when using relatively simple method like interviews, they
can lead to inappropriate dynamics, which may in turn create distrust and ruin the
relationship. Consequently, before using any method, engineers should properly train
themselves and improve competencies and attribute such as empathy, cross-cultural
communication and behavioral skills, contextual listening skills, and critical self-

196

awareness. Therefore, it becomes critically important to develop and use self-awareness
tools (5.2.2.1) before engaging in any interaction with communities.
Finally, it is very important to ground the use of methods in well-established and
comprehensive philosophical and methodological commitments. For instance, engineers
could use Leydens and Lucena’s (2014) social justice criteria to guide their choice and
use of methods. Specifically, Leydens and Lucena (2014) provide six SJ criteria to guide
humanitarian and other type of engineering practice: “1) listening contextually, 2)
identifying structural conditions, 3) acknowledging political agency/mobilizing power, 4)
increasing opportunities and resources, 5) reducing imposed risks and harms, and 6)
enhancing human capabilities” (p. 6). Many of the methods to understand a problem
(5.2.1) can also be very useful to meet SJ criteria 2. For instance, Problem Tree
(Chevalier & Buckles, 2008) provides a way to visualize problems and their causes,
while Timeline (Chevalier & Buckles, 2008) may enable engineers to understand the
historical roots of a problem. Similarly, to meet SJ criteria 3, engineers may select from
and use many different methods to identify and characterize stakeholders (5.2.2.4).
In sum, the appropriateness of the methods depends on many factors including
addressing specific challenges, skills and attributes of the participating engineers, training,
and philosophical commitments. Engineers should take considerable care in properly
learning about and selecting what methods to use, as any method used inappropriately
could lead to many negative results.

197

8.2 Broader Considerations
In this section I discuss some emergent themes that were not directly related to my
research question, but that are still worth exploring because they provide insights on other
considerations that may be helpful to facilitate community participation and ensure the
long-term success of HE projects. First, I discuss trust and social interactions. Second, I
focus on asset-based development and its potential application to HE projects. Then, I
discuss the sociotechnical nature of HE and I connect it to the broader literature on
engineering practice and socio-technical dualism. I conclude with some reflections
regarding students’ involvement in service-learning courses.
8.2.1 Trust and Social Interactions
When asked what factors may influence the success of a project, many participants talked
about building trusted relationships. This idea was probably best articulated by Marissa
Jablonski: “without trust you cannot build and without trust no one is listening.” The lack
of trust prevents having frank and open communication with community members, who
will not express their perspectives openly if they do not trust outsiders. This was, for
instance, the case that Marissa Jablonski observed regarding a bridge project of another
international NGO in the same village she was working. Because the NGO had not
established trust, nobody had told them that the community did not want nor need the
bridge that they were going to build, and therefore the NGO proceeded with its
construction anyway. Now, Marissa Jablonski observes that the bridge was never used. In
contrast with this example, Emily Wigley and her teammates did not proceed with
installing a water pump until they were sure that they had established a trusted
relationship with all the main groups of the village. They in fact had noticed that a group

198

of women had never showed real enthusiasm regarding the project and therefore they
wisely waited until they were able to gain the trust that was needed for the women to
share their concerns. The development of this relationship took almost two years, but it
was worth it because it allowed Emily Wigley and her teammates to make sure to have
the support of the entire community.
Building trusted relationships was also one of the principles (Section 4.1.4) that
emerged from the analysis of the 48 papers that I collected in the first phase of this study
(e.g., Aslam et al., 2014; Hilton et al., 2014; Mehta and Mehta, 2011). For instance, Heil
et al (2012) recognize that “an important component of any successful service learning
project is the development of a working relationship with the target community and the
establishment of trust.” Similarly, Chisolm et al. (2014) suggest investing “in activities to
build trust with the community and facilitate open communication” (p. 532). A few
papers also report that trust is a function of time (Garff et al., 2013; Hilton et al., 2014;
Leydens and Lucena, 2014; Munoz, 2014), as also demonstrated by the aforementioned
example shared by Emily Wigley.
The literature, however, offered limited insights regarding strategies to promote
trust, while the participants shared many interesting insights. As discussed earlier, co-
constructive methods could be very useful in breaking the ice with a community and in
laying the foundation for creating a trusted relationship. Yet, the most surprising aspect
of what the participants shared was related to the importance of immersing themselves in
the daily life of the community. This included having meals with community members,
sojourning in community members’ houses, playing soccer with the local children,
attending social events, like weddings and festivities. While not directly associated

199

with trust, immersive experiences have been recognized to be very important for design,
especially in terms of developing empathic designers. For instance, one of the main
implication from Zoltowski et al.’s (2012) phenomenographic study on how students
experience human-centered design was that “immersive experiences involving real
clients and users were important in allowing the students to experience human-centered
design in more comprehensive ways” (p. 49). While none of my participants explicitly
mentioned empathy, it is clear that budgeting time to be with the community without
doing traditional project activities has tremendous benefits for the success of projects.
8.2.2 Asset-Based Community Development
The concept and practice of asset- or strength-based community development emerged
from the interview with the practitioners (Chapter 7), but was not explicitly discussed by
any of the 48 papers I collected and reviewed (Chapter 4). Andrew explained that the
asset-based approach is based on the assumption that the community is rich in resources
and expertise to build on. Emily Wigley adds that it starts by looking at what the
community is already trying to achieve and focuses on supporting the community in
achieve their pre-existing goals. Michael preferred using the term “strengths-based”
approach, but the core idea is the same. He also notices that focusing only on needs can
be very disempowering for a community, while a strengths-based approach may instead
provide a more empowering process and lead to more sustainable projects. In fact, Emily
Wigley noted that she and her team were able to initiate much more diverse and
interesting projects once they were able to move to an asset-based approach.
The asset-based approach requires practitioners to have a solid understanding of
the assets available in the community, and a few participants discussed specific strategies

200

to identify assets in a community. For instance, Emily Wigley used a “capacity inventory”
to “assess skills in the community to see what can be supported.” David Frossard
described a meeting in which he brings together the community to discuss what the
community has rather than what they are lacking:
So we get in a big group meeting and instead of saying, “What are you
lacking? What’s wrong with this place? What is missing here?” We start
by saying, with our flip-chart, we start by saying, “What do you have?
What resources do you have?”
Another strategy to understand what local expertise is available is to study the hardware
store of the community, as suggested by Ken Kastman:
Go into the hardware store and study the hardware store, and you see
what’s on the wall, and you see what tools they have, and you see what
materials they have. Is there a lot of electrical equipment or virtually no
electrical equipment? You get a reasonable understanding of the skillsets
of the local people. It is not to say they can’t get skillsets nearby, but if we
are looking for a welder, and you go into the hardware store and they have
no welding supplies, they probably don’t have any welders in the town.
However, the discussion of strategies regarding asset-based assessment of the community
were limited to the three examples shared above.
In the engineering-related literature that I reviewed in Chapter 4, asset-based
community development was not explicitly mentioned, but some papers talked about
aspects that align with the asset-based community development approach. A group of
papers discussed the importance of harnessing local resources and expertise (Section

201

4.1.2). For example, Mattson and Wood (2014) suggest that designers must recognize
that “resource-poor individuals have valuable expertise in surviving in low resource
environments and in understanding local materials and networks” (p. 2). A few authors
also mentioned working closely with local experts, like carpenters (McDaniel, 2011),
brickmakers (de Chastonay et al., 2012), and sculptors (Hussain and Sanders, 2012).
Similar to what was suggested by Ken Kastman, a few papers discussed visiting local
vendors and stores as way to identify local resources (Aslam et al., 2014; Barb and
Everett, 2014; Magoon et al., 2010; Nieusma and Riley, 2010).
The philosophy of asset-based community development also aligns with some of
the considerations that were reported by papers that focused on the social justice, human
rights, and ethical dimensions of HE (Section 4.1.3). For instance, Schneider et al. (2009)
criticize traditional HE projects because in these projects, communities are usually
defined “by what they lack” (p. 45). Aligned with the asset-based philosophy, they
suggest that a community should be seen through the lenses of “its multiple social,
cultural, and other assets and capacities, and most of all, its own dreams and aspirations”
(p. 47). This idea is also directly related to some major aspects of the rights-based
approach proposed by Bayars et al. (2009), especially in terms of recognizing
communities as “actors in their own development instead of viewing them as victims” (p.
2714). The asset-based philosophy is a very promising framework for thinking about
engineering for global development, and therefore it is worth discussing some of the non-
engineering-related literature focused on asset-based community development.
The origins of the asset-based community development (ABCD) can be traced
back to Kretzmann and McKnight (1993). They assert that needs-based approaches

202

present “only a one-sided negative view, which has often compromised, rather than
contributed to, community capacity building” (Mathie and Cunningham, 2003, p. 476). In
contrast, ABCD “rests on the principle that a recognition of strengths and assets is more
likely to inspire positive action for change in a community than is an exclusive focus on
needs and problems” (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003, p. 477). Beaulieau (2002) contrasted
needs and asset-based approaches to community development and observed that needs-
based approaches make “people consumers of services” (p. 4) and therefore create
dependence on external agencies, while asset-based approaches seek to “build
interdependencies” (p. 4) by identifying “ways that people can give of their talents” (p. 4).
Further, ABCD’s focus on identifying and mobilizing assets also requires the use
of methods specifically conceived for this purpose. Sharpe et al. (2000) discuss a list of
assets-oriented community assessment methods, some of those closely related to
information-gathering methods presented in Chapter 5. For instance, they suggest
community workers should do “windshield and walking tours of communities,” a method
very similar to transect walks (Freudenberger, 2008) or systematic walkabout (Almedom
et al., 1997), during which workers drive or walk with local guides through the
community and annotate important features of the community. Complementary to this
method is the use of an assets map that focuses specifically on mapping physical assets
and location of local institutions and organizations (Sharpe et al., 2000). They also
suggest that community groups can be directly involved in creating assets maps, as it
happens in participatory mapping (Almedom et al., 1997; Beebe, 2001; Freudenberger,
2008; PeaceCorps, 2005). Additionally, Sharpe et al. (2000) suggest using “inventories,”
also mentioned by Emily Wigley in her interview, which are surveys to “catalogue and

203

describe individual and organizational capacities” (p. 209). Finally, another method
worth citing from Sharpe et al. (2000) is “visioning;” a workshop in which “a group of
community stakeholders collectively define a shared dream of what their community can
become” (p. 209). The envisioning exercise could be used as an alternative to some
problem framing methods (Section 5.2.1 of this dissertation) that focus on needs and
problems rather than community’s dreams and aspirations.
In sum, the idea of an asset-based approach as a core aspect of HE emerged from
the interviews with practitioners but was not fully unpacked by any of the papers I had
collected during the first phase of this study. The potential of asset- or strengths-based
approaches to foster long-term sustainability and community empowerment make it a
worthwhile focus of discussion and future research.
8.2.3 The Sociotechnical Nature of Humanitarian Engineering Practice
The interviews with the 14 participants provided many insights regarding the
sociotechnical nature of HE practice. Many participants, in fact, shared that based on
their experience “engineering is the easy part” of HE projects. The greatest challenges
come from the social and the cultural aspects of these projects rather than the technical.
This idea is probably best represented in Emily’s quote: “Engineers Without Borders is
80% sitting there listening and maybe 20% actual engineering.” There was in fact
agreement among the participants that most of what they do is talk to people to create
trust and build buy-in or ownership on the part of the community.
These observations align very closely with the extant literature on engineering
practice and the concept of sociotechnical dualism. For instance, Emily Wigley’s
assertion that HE is 80% listening and 20% technical resonates with Trevelyan and Tilli’s

204

(2007) finding that about 60% of engineering practice in industry is focused on
interacting with other people. Moreover, the participants’ observations that is important
to incorporate local and multidisciplinary expertise aligns very well with Trevelyan’s
(2010) characterization of engineering as a “combined human performance, in which
expertise is distributed among the participants and emerges from their social interactions”
(p. 176). The findings of this dissertation therefore corroborate the argument that the
social is as consequential as the technical in engineering practice (Bucciarelli, 2003;
Bovy and Vinck, 2003; Faulkner, 2000; Jesiek et al., 2015; Stevens et al., 2015).
Furthermore, suggesting a switch from a needs-based approach to an asset-based
approach challenges the “Universalized Narratives” that conceptualize engineering as
applied science and math, problem-solving, and making things (Pawley, 2009). This
dissertation in fact proposes that engineering, especially in the context of international
development, should be seen primarily as learning and facilitating collective action, and
only secondarily as a technical practice, without forgetting that a culturally appropriate
bridge that is not structurally solid might be as or more harmful than an unwanted bridge.
8.2.4 Students’ Involvement
Although this dissertation did not explicitly investigate issues related to students’
involvement in HE projects, there were a few instances worth discussing in which
participants shared insights regarding aspects of student involvement. For many
participants, these experiences provide great learning opportunities for their
undergraduate engineering students. For instance, David Munoz observed that the
“learning experience is incredible” for undergraduate engineering students involved in
HE. This observation aligns with the extant literature on both local and global service

205

learning, which has suggested that students greatly benefit from these experiences. For
instance, Litchfield et al. (2016) showed that EWB and non-EWB members had similar
perceptions of their own technical competencies, but EWB members reported
significantly higher perceptions of their own professional skills. Similarly, EPICS
alumni perceived that their EPICS experience helped them prepare for the workplace
(Huff et al., 2016). Thus, the participants of this study observed benefits for students that
are well aligned with the extant literature on service learning.
However, some participants also pointed out tensions between students’ learning
and the value that these projects can provide for the community. For example, Robert
observes that while students “get this huge cultural benefit” by being in a community,
there also must “be a win-win for everyone involved for it to be sustainable.” The tension
between students’ learning and addressing the needs of a community has been pointed
out in critiques of engineering courses for global development. For instance, Riley (2007)
observes that one problem with global service-learning classes is:
the inevitable competition between the educational needs of the
engineering students and the community’s needs. Amadei’s use of the
phrase “viewing the developing world as the classroom of the 21st century”
is illustrative of the tension here – even with the best intentions, it
becomes problematic to attempt to meet both sets of needs. (p. 6)
This tension is further exacerbated when considering that engineering students may not
be experienced enough to offer expertise that might instead be readily available in the
host country at an even cheaper cost:

206

What relatively inexperienced engineering students have to offer
development projects – namely a few years’ engineering school course
experience and their physical labor – is modest and, generally, readily
available (regionally if not locally) and more affordable (at least relative to
the budgets of typical international student exchange programs). (Nieusma
and Riley, 2010, p. 54)
These observations raise salient questions about the ethics of involving students in HE
projects and may suggest that it might be wiser not to allow such involvement.
However, one example shared by Marissa Jablonski may provide a different
perspective on the involvement of students in HE and similar projects. In the interview,
Marissa Jablonski shared an argument she had with one of her students during a field trip
in Guatemala. One of her students was particularly stubborn and claimed that they needed
to “force the village to understand” and listen to them because their solution was the right
one. Marissa Jablonski got very frustrated with the situation, as she was not able to help
the students understand the importance of listening to the community and build consensus
and trust before moving on with any solution. She shared this frustration with her project
partner, while they were alone:
I was just with him and I told him, I said “You know, I am really
struggling. I know you heard the conflict between me and her in the field.
I have been trying, I am trying to explain the importance of these three
groups [EWB, local NGO, community] and how we need to listen more
than we talk.

207

She then goes on to express her concern with the participation of this student on the
project:
I ended with “you know the problem is… she is coming again, because
she is not graduating.” And this is what I said.
The reply from her project partner somewhat shocked her as he suggested that the
problem was that she was not staying in the village:
And he looked at me and he said “that’s not the problem Marissa. The
problem is… she should come more often. So, she understands how we do
things. And how we think.”
Unexpectedly, Marissa Jablonski’s project partner was very eager to have foreign
students participate in these projects. Marissa Jablonski’s project partner also emphasized
that while building a water system is part of why they were collaborating, the real gain
from these interactions is that they help “making the world a smaller place.”
The examples shared from the interview with Marissa Jablonski suggest other
kinds of considerations regarding the involvement of students in developing projects.
While it does not mean that those students should participate at any cost, it suggests that
project partners might be interested in student learning as well. In fact, four studies have
found that project partners may decide to collaborate with universities because they are
themselves interested in supporting students’ learning (Sandy and Holland, 2006;
Stoecker and Tryon, 2009; Thompson, 2014; Worrall, 2007). Project partners are not only
interested in the outcome produced by the students, but they especially “see themselves
as having education and outreach roles, and their interactions with students helps fulfill
their organizational missions” (Thompson, 2014, p.27). While these four studies refer to

208

domestic service-learning partnerships, the same considerations may apply to
international partnerships and future research would shed light on the motivations of
project partners and community members in allowing students to visit their community to
undertake HE projects.
8.3 Dissemination Plan and Research-to-Practice Ideas
In this section, I present my plan for disseminating the results of this dissertation and
ideas to translate my research to educational practice. To disseminate my research, I plan
to leverage multiple scholarly outlets. I have already submitted a manuscript focused on
the review of literature related to participation frameworks (section 2.6 of this
dissertation) to IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. If successful, I will also submit
an opinion paper in which I will present the participation ladder provided in Appendix C
to the same journal. I would like to submit the findings presented in chapter 4 to the
Journal of Humanitarian Engineering, an open access journal published by EWB –
Australia. I believe that chapter 5 that presents methods and classification framework
would be most beneficial for readers of the International Journal of Service-Learning in
Engineering. Chapter 6 that is focused on benefits and challenges of participatory
methods could be submitted to the International Journal of Design, because this journal
is particularly interested in “cultural factors on design theory and practice” and has
already published work focused on participatory design in developing countries (e.g.,
Hussain and Sanders, 2012). Chapter 7 presents the findings that best elucidated HE
practice and, to some extent, challenges dominant images of engineers practice more
generally. Therefore, I believe it could be a good fit for Engineering Studies.

209

There are a few potential ways to translate this research into practice and reach
students and practitioners. For instance, the findings of this dissertation could be
integrated in existing introductory courses on engineering design like first engineering
programs or in course focused on engineering in global context. Alternatively, the
findings could also be presented in short workshops for EWB chapter or EPICS skills
sessions, during which students could practice using some of the methods presented in
Chapter 5. Another possibility would be to create an entire class focused on community-
based participatory research in the context of engineering for global development.
Furthermore, some of the methods could be integrated in existing international short-term
projects like MIT’s International Development Design Summit and EWB-Australia’s
Humanitarian Engineering Design Summit. To reach practitioners, my research could be
presented in webinars organized by E4C and integrated in their new course on
engineering for global development.
Finally, the next major step in my research is to develop a learning platform
where students, faculty, and professionals can learn about methods, strategies, and
philosophy for HE projects. While this dissertation was use-inspired, the development of
the platform will be user-centered or participatory, requiring extensive user research and
co-development and testing of prototypes. A first step toward this goal could include the
creation of a written field guide that could be published in Morgan & Claypool’s
synthesis lectures on Global Engineering edited by Dr. Gary Downey and Dr. Kacey
Beddoes or on Engineers, Technology and Society.

210

8.4 Future Research
This study has revealed multiple important insights regarding the practice of HE, but it
has also shown that there are still many gaps to fill. In this section, I conclude this
dissertation by discussing five possible future areas of research.
First, while I was able to collect many methods for community participation, there
are still aspects that need to be further explored. Due to limitations related to how the
methods were described in their original sources, I was not able to categorize methods
based on required materials, difficulty, and time (as for instance done by the Helen
Hamlyn Centre for Design). This would require eliciting such information from a larger
sample of experts in international development. The investigation on methods, however,
should not be limited to Western professionals, but should also include communities that
have interacted with humanitarian engineers. It would be very interesting to visit
communities that have received humanitarian engineers to investigate their perception of
the partnerships. This would be especially important as research on community
perspectives in international development and HE is very limited.
Second, interviewing a larger pool of humanitarian engineers and similar
professionals would also allow investigating many other aspects of engineering for global
development. For instance, while this dissertation pointed to the importance of trust and
asset-based approaches, there is still much more to understand on this topic, including
how these approaches can be integrated in HE practice. It would be also interesting to
investigate the identity of these engineers and to how they navigate the technical and
social aspects of their identity.

211

Third, this dissertation also revealed a large gap in the literature regarding what
competencies are needed to being effective in engineering for development projects. This
line of research could also be integrated with the development of assessment instruments
and interventions specifically conceived to develop those needed competencies. Scenario-
based assessment instruments would be particularly fit for this purpose because they are
grounded in realistic contexts of practice and are able to directly probe students’ ability
rather than their perceptions (Jesiek and Woo, 2011). Due to their many advantages, they
have been used to evaluate many professional competencies, including design skills and
abilities (Adams et al., 2003; Atman et al., 2007; Atman and Bursic, 1996), adaptive
expertise (Walker et al., 2006), aspects of global competencies (Downey et al., 2006;
Jesiek et al., 2010), knowledge of global, societal, economic, and environmental contexts
(McKenna et al., 2015), and sociotechnical thinking in the context of engineering and
sustainable community development (Mazzurco et al., 2014).
Fourth, there remain opportunities to investigate how to integrate concepts that
emerged from this study, including asset-based approaches, trust building, etc., into
current engineering curricula, and especially in traditional engineering science classes.
Additionally, further research should focus on developing and assessing training
initiatives for novices and experienced students and professionals to instill the mindsets
and teach the methods that were found to be most important for successful humanitarian
engineering projects.
Finally, a major finding of this study is related to the importance of having strong
project partners. Their role can be very important in many aspects of the projects,
including to enhance the use of methods discussed in chapter 5. More research should

212

focus on the roles of project partners in these projects. Additionally, previous studies
have investigated the nature of partnerships in the context of local service-learning
projects (e.g., Thompson, 2014). Future research should investigate the motivations,
nature, structure, and the connections among community partners and other stakeholders
in the context of humanitarian engineering projects.
8.5 Conclusion
In this study, I investigated the many ways in which engineers could facilitate community
participation in HE and similar projects. The final result is a use-inspired framework of
methods that can help engineers and engineering students to choose methods that best fit
their needs and philosophy. The interviews with the practitioners also provided great
insights into the actual practice of HE. Examples from the interviewees can be very
helpful to prepare novice engineers to do HE projects. Boyer’s Scholarship of Integration
provided a useful and helpful framework to conduct this study, and I look forward to see
other studies leveraging this framework. Finally, I hope the findings of this study can fuel
lively discussion around the role of engineers in global development.

REFERENCES

213

REFERENCES

ABET (2004). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective for Evaluations
During the 2005-2006 Accreditation Cycle. Baltimore, MD: Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology.
Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003) Educating effective engineering designers:
The role of reflective practice. Design studies, 24(3), 275-294.
Amadei, B., Sandekian, R., & Thomas, E. (2009). A model for sustainable humanitarian
engineering projects. Sustainability, 1, 1087-1105.
Almedom, A., Blumenthal, U., and Manderson, L. (1997) Hygiene Evaluation
Procedures: Approaches and methods for assessing water- and sanitation-related
hygiene practices. International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries.
Arnstein, A., 1969. A ladder of citizenship participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 26, 216–233.
Avrai, J., & Post, K. (2012). Risk management in a developing country context:
Improving decisions about point-of-use water treatment among the rural poor in
Africa. Risk analysis, 32(1), 67-80.

214

Aslam, A., Navarro, I., Wen, A., & Hassett, M. (2014). Stuck in cement: breaking from
conventional mindsets in student-led service learning partnerships. International
Journal or Service Learning in Engineering, 9(1), 135-149.
Aslam, A., Pearson-Beck, M., Boots, R., Mayton, H., Link, S., & Elzey, D. (2013).
Effective community listening: A case study on photovoice in rural Nicaragua.
International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 8(1), 36-47.
Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1996). Teaching engineering design: Can reading a
textbook make a difference?. Research in Engineering Design, 8(3), 240–250.
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Mosborg, S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., & Saleem, J. (2007).
Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners.
Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.
Atman, C. J., Chimka, K. M., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison
of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.
Baillie, C. (2006). Engineering within a Local and Global Society. San Rafael,CA:
Morgan and Claypool. DOI: 10.2200/S00059ED1V01Y200609ETS002 44
Baillie, C. (2010). Needs and Feasibility: A Guide for Engineers in Community Projects:
The Case of Waste for Life. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.
Barb, K., & Everett, J. W. (2014). Clean water for La Ceiba, El Salvador – Household
biosand filters. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 9(1), 40-
63.
Bayars, P., Woodrow, M., & Antizar-Ladislao, B. (2009). Integrated method in
international development for water solutions using the rights-based approach. Water
Science & Technology, 60(10), 2713-2720.

215

Beebe, J. (2001). Rapid Assessment Process: An Introduction. Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira Press.
Beaulieu, L. (2002). Mapping the assets of your community: a key component for
building local capacity. SRDC Series #227. Mississippi State, MS: Southern Rural
Development Center.
Biggs, S. (1989) Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of
Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR
Comparative Study Paper 3. The Hague: International Service for National
Agricultural Research.
Blue, N., Levine, M., & Nieusma, D. (2013) Engineering and War: Militarism, Ethics,
Institutions, and Alternatives. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J. & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in
Engineering Education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of
Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76.
Bowen, J., & Acciaioli, G. (2009). Improving the success of “bottom-up” development
work by acknowledging the dynamics among stakeholders: a case study from an
Engineers Without Borders water supply project in Tenganan, Indonesia. Water
Science & Technology, 60(10), 279-287.
Boyer, E.L., (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton,
NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77 – 101.

216

Bucciarelli, L. (2003). Engineering philosophy. Delft: Delft University Press Bovy and
Vinck, 2003;
Bursic, K. M., & Atman, C. J. (1997). Information gathering: A critical step for quality in
the design process. Quality Management Journal, 4(4), 60–75.
California Polytechnic State University. (2012). What is SUSTAIN LSO?. Retrieved
from https://sustainslo.calpoly.edu/
Canavate, J., & Casasus, J. M. (2010). Humanitarian engineering in Spain: Ingenieros sin
frontieras. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 29(1), 12-19.
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and
paradigm. World Development, 22 (10), 14737 – 1454.
Chamber, R. (2005). Ideas for Development. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Chevalier, J. M, & Buckles, D. J. (2008). SAS2: a guide to collaborative inquiry and
social engagement. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications India, Pvt LTtd.
Chisolm, R., Gall, E. T., Read, R., & Salas, F. R. (2014). Lessons from a student-led
development project in Peru: Aligning technical and educational perspectives.
International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Special Edition, 525-539.
Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, N. M. (1980). Participation’s place in rural development:
Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8, 213-235.
Colorado School of Mines. (2014). Humanitarian Engineering Home. Retrieved from
http://inside.mines.edu/HE-Humanitarian-Engineering-Home
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U (2001). Participation, the New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books
Cornwall, A. (2000). Beneficiary, consumer, citizen: Perspectives on participation for
poverty reduction. Sida Studies, 2.

217

Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning
matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738-798.
Davidson, S. (1998) Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning, 3, 14–15.
De Chastonay, A., Soni, S., Bugas, M., & Swap, R. (2012). Community Driven
Development of Rocket Stoves in Rural South Africa. International Journal for
Service Learning in Engineering, 7(2), 49-68.
de Marca, Roberto (2014). Opening Remarks. IEE Global Humanitarian Technology
Conference. October, 11, 2014.
DHE. (2012). Home. Retrieved from http://www.dhedartmouth.org/
Dodson, L. L., & Bargach, J. (2015). Harvesting fresh water from fog in rural morocco:
research and impact Dar Si Hmad’s Fogwater Project in Aït Baamrane. Procedia
Engineering, 107, 186 – 193.
Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 2(1), 1-25.
Duffy, J. (2008). Village empowerment: Service-learning with continuity. International
Journal of Service Learning in Engineering, 3(2), 1-17.
Engineers for a Sustainable World. (2014). About us. Retrieved from
http://www.eswusa.org/drupal/about-us
Engineering World Health. (2014). Our Mission. Retrieved from
http://www.ewh.org/about/mission
Eprechet, M. (2004). Work-study aboard courses in international development studies:
Some ethical and pedagogical issues. Canadian Journal Development Studies, 25(4),
687-706.

218

EPICS (2014). About. Retrieved from https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICS/About
Easterly, W. (2006).The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest
Have Done so Much Ill and so Little Good. New York: The Penguin Press.
ETHOS (2014). About ETHOS. Retrieved from
http://www.udayton.edu/engineering/ethos/#2
Faulkner, W. (2000). Dualisms, hierarchies, and gender in engineering. Social Studies of
Science, 30(5), 759-792.
Ferrer-Martì, L., Garwood, A., Chiroque, J., Escobar, R., Coello, J., & Castro, M. (2010).
A community small-scale wind generation project in Peru. Wing Engineering, 34(3),
277-288.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4).
Freundenberger, K. S. (2008). Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA): A manual for CRS field workers and partners. Retrieved from
http://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/research-publications/rapid-rural-appraisal-
and-participatory-rural-appraisal
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Garff, P., Dahlin, E., Ward, C., & Lewis, R. (2013). Analysis of integrated engineering
and social science approaches for projects in developing communities. International
Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Special Edition, 137–150
Garfì, M., & Ferrer-Martì. (2011). Decision-making criteria and indicators for water and
sanitation projects in developing countries. Water Science & Technology, 64(1), 83-
101.

219

Gough I., & McGregor, J.A., eds (2007). Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From
Theory to Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types
and associated methodologies. Health Information Library Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Grasso, D., Callahan, M., & Doucett, S. (2004). Defining engineering thought.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 412–415.
Harshfield, E., Jemec, A., Makhado, O., & Ramarumo, E. (2009). Water purification in
rural south Africa: ethical analysis and reflections on collaborative community
engagement projects in engineering. International Journal for Service Learning in
Engineering, 4(1), 1-14.
Hart, R. A. (1992). Children Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence, Italy:
UNICEF.
Hage, M., Leroy, P., & Petersen, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder participation in
environmental knowledge production. Futures, 43, 254-264.
Hammer, M. (1994). Why Projects Fail. Ceres, 26(1), 32-35.
Heil, E., Nengwenani, D., Raedani, A., Gutierrez, V., Nthambeleni, G., Mathoma, K.,
Brown-Glazner, R., & Swap. R. (2010). Student-led, community driven improvement
of the drinking supply in a rural village in South Africa. International Journal for
Service Learning in Engineering, 5(1), 94-110.
Helen Hamlyn Center for Design (2016). Methods. Retrieved from
http://designingwithpeople.rca.ac.uk/methods

220

Hess, J., & Strobel, J. (2013). Indigenous ways of doing: Synthesizing scholarly literature
on ethno-engineering. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and
Peace, 2(2), 55-80.
Hinton, A., Ortbal, K., & Mehta, K. (2014). The praxis of grassroots diplomacy for social
entrepreneurship. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 9(2),
116-134.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Huff, J. L., Zoltowski, C.B., & Oakes, W. C. Preparing engineers for the workplace
through service learning: Perception of EPICS alumni. Journal of Engineering
Education, 105(1), 43-69.
Hussain, S. (2010). Empowering marginalised children in developing countries through
participatory design processes. CoDesign, 6(2), 99-117.
Hussain, S., Sanders, E. B. –N., & Steinert, M. (2012). participatory design with
marginalized people in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities
experienced in a field study in Cambodia. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 91-
109.
Hutchison-Green, M. A., Follman, D. K., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). Providing a voice:
Qualitative investigation of the impact of a first-year engineering experience on
students’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 177-190.
IDEO. (2014). HCDconnect-Methods. Retrived October 24, 2014 from
http://www.hcdconnect.org/methods

221

Ika, L. A. (2012). Project management for development in Africa: Why projects are
failing and what can be done about it. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 27-41.
Illich, I. (1968). To hell with good intentions. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from
http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm
Jesiek, B. K. & Beddoes, K. (2010). From diplomacy and development to
competitiveness and globalization: Historical perspectives on the internationalization
of engineering education. In Downey, G. L. & Beddoes, K. (Eds.), What is global
engineering education for?: The making of international educators (pp. 45-76). San
Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.
Jesiek, B. K., & Woo, S. E. (2011). Realistic assessment for realistic instruction:
situational assessment strategies for engineering education and practice. Proceedings
of the SEFI Annual Conference 2011, Lisbon, Portugal, September 27-30.
Jue, D. (2011). Improving the long-term sustainability of service-learning projects: six
lessons learned from early MIT ideas competition winners. International Journal for
Service Learning in Engineering, 6(2), 19-29.
Kanji, N., & Greenwood, L. (2001). Participatory Approaches to Research and
Development in IIED: Learning from Experience. London: IIED.
Kramer, S., Amos, T., Lazarus, S., & Seedat, M. (2012). The philosophical assumption,
utility and challenges of asset mapping approaches to community engagement.
Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(4), 537–546
Kretzmann, J. &, McKnight, J. (1993). Building Communities form the Inside Out.
Chicago: ). ACTA publications.

222

Leydens, J.A, & Lucena, J.C. (2009a). Knowledge valuation in humanitarian engineering
education. In S.H. Christensen, M. Meganck, and B. Delahousse (Eds.) Engineering
in Context (pp. 147-162). Aarhus: Academia.
Leydens, J. A., & Lucena, J. C. (2009b). Listening as a missing dimension in engineering
education: Implications for sustainable community development efforts. IEEE
transactions on professional communication, 52(4). 359-376.
Leydens, J.A, & Lucena, J.C. (2014). Social justice: A missing, unelaborated dimension
in humanitarian engineering and learning through service. International Journal of
Service Learning in Engineering, 9(2), 1 – 28.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J.
P., . . .Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and
elaboration. BMJ (Clinical Research Education), 339, b2700. doi:
10.1136/bmj.b2700Landis and Koch 1977
Lilja, N., & Ashby, J. A. (1999). Types of Participatory Research Based on Locus of
Decision Making. Cali, Colombia: Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research, Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. (PRGA working document ;
no. 6)
Litchfield, K, & Javernick-Will, A. (2014). Investigating gains from EWB-USA
involvement. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice,
140(1).

223

Lucena, J. C. (2013a). Engineers and Community: How Sustainable Engineering
Depends on Engineers’ Views of People. In J. Kauffman & K.-M. Lee (eds.),
Handbook of Sustainable Engineering (pp. 793-815). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer Science+Business Media.
Lucena, J.C. (2013b). Engineering Education for Social Justice: Critical Explorations
and Opportunities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
Lucena, J. C., Dean, J., (2014). Design with vulnerable communities through NGOs:
partnering criteria, relationship building, and design pedagogy. Tech4Dev
International Conference.
Lucena, J. C., & Schneider, J. (2008). Engineers, development, and engineering
education: From national to sustainable community development. European Journal
of Engineering Education, 33(3), 247-257.
Lucena, J.C., Schneider, J., & Leydens, J. A. (2010). Engineering and sustainable
community development (pp. 13 – 53). Morgan & Claypool.
Lustig, Myron & Koester, Jolene (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal
communication across cultures. New York: Harper Collins.
Lynam, T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., & Evans, K. (2007). A review of
tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision
making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(1).
Magee, A, Macdonald, R., Johnson, P., Johnson, P.W., & Todd, B. (2011). Safe water
evaluations in the Peruvian amazon. International Journal for Service Learning in
Engineering, 6(1), 104-117.

224

Magoon, C., Villars, K., Evans, J., Hickey, B., Sayre, A., Tutino, C., & Swap, R. J.
(2010). Water supply and treatment design in rural Belize: a participatory approach to
engineering action research. International Journal for Service Learning in
Engineering, 5(1), 47-63.
Maloney, P., Dent, L., & Karp, T. (2013). A new method of assessing the effects of a
service-learning class on engineering undergraduate students. International Journal
for Service Learning in Engineering, Special Edition, 29-47.
Marsolek, M. D., Cummings, P. K., Alcantara, J. T., Wayne, M., Quinter, L. F., Vallejos,
C., Jackels, C. F., Jackels, S. C. (2012). Wastewater treatment for a coffee processing
mill in Nicaragua: a service-learning design project. International Journal for Service
Learning in Engineering, 7(1), 69-92.
Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community
development as a strategy for community driven Development. Development in
Practice, 13(5), 474-486.
Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2008). From Clients to Citizens: Communities Changing
the Course of their Own Development. Warwickshire: Practical Action.
Mattson, C. A., & Wood, A. E. (2014). Nine principles for design for the developing
world as derived from the engineering literature. Journal of Mechanical Design,
136, 1-15.
Mazzurco, A., Huff, J. L., & Jesiek, B. K. (2014). The energy conversion playground
(ECP) design task: Developing an instrument to assess technical and non-technical
thinking for sustainable community development. International Journal of Service
Learning in Engineering, 9(2), 64-84.

225

Mazzurco, A., & Jesiek, B. K. (2014). Learning from failures: A typology to enhance
global service-learning engineering projects. Proceeding of the 2014 ASEE
conference and exhibition, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-14.
McConville, J. R., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2007). Adapting life-cycle thinking tools to
evaluate project sustainability in international water and sanitation development work.
Environmental Engineering Science, 24(7), 937-948.
McDaniel, M., Prebil, E., Swap, R., Berinyuy, C., Chapman, D., Eilerts, H., & McDaniel,
J. (2011). Community-led sanitation in Simoonga, Zambia. International Journal for
Service Learning in Engineering, 6(2), 58-77.
Meganck, M. (2010). From boy scouts and missionaries, to development partners. IEEE
Technology and Society, 27-34.
Mehta, C., & Mehta, K. (2011). Design-space and business-strategy exploration tool for
infrastructure-based ventures in developing communities. International Journal for
Service Learning in Engineering, 6(2), 30-57.
Mihelcic, J. M., Fry, L. M., Myre, E. A., Phillips, L. D., & Barkdoll, B. (2009). Field
Guide to Environmental Engineering for Development Workers: Water, Sanitation,
and Indoor Air. ASCE Press.
Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Mitcham, C., & Munoz D. (2010). Humanitarian Engineering. San Rafael, CA: Morgan
and Claypool.
Mortenson Center. (2014). About. Retrieved from https://mcedc.colorado.edu/about

226

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for
Africa. Penguin Books.
Munoz, D. R. (2014). In search of community; humanitarian engineers and circles of
friends. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Special Edition,
509–524.
Murphy, H. M., Mcbean, E. A., & Faranbakhsh, K. (2009). Appropriate technology – A
comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world.
Technology in Society, 31, 158–167
Nelson, L. A. (2012). Scaffolding undergraduate engineering design education with the
wellbeing framework. Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Conference and Exhibition.
Nickerson, R. C., Varnshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy
development and its application in information systems. European Journal of
Information Systems, 22, 336–359
Nieusma, D. (2004). Alternative design scholarships: Working toward appropriate design.
Design Issues, 20(3), 13-24.
Nieusma, D., & Riley, D. (2010). Designs on development: engineering, globalization,
and social justice. Engineering Studies, 2(1), 29-59.

227

Ogunyoku, T. A., Nover, D. M., McKenzie, E. R., Joshi, G., & Fleenor, W. E. (2011).
Point-of-use drinking water treatment in the developing world: community
acceptance, project monitoring and revision. International Journal for Service
Learning in Engineering, 6(1), 14-32,
Okello, C., Pindozzi, S., Faugno, S., & Boccia, L. (2014). Appraising bioenergy
alternatives in Uganda using strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
(SWOT)-analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and a desirability functions approach.
Energies, 7, 1171-1192.
Oldenziel, R. (2000). Multiple-entry visas: Gender and engineering in the US, 1870–1945.
In A. Canel, R. Oldenziel, & K. Zachman (Eds.), Crossing boundaries, building
bridges: Comparing the history of women engineers, 1870s–1990s (pp. 11–49).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Ones, B. (2013). Engaging women’s voices through theatre for energy development.
Renewable Energy, 49, 185-187.
Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define
“engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4),p.309-319.
Paye, S. (2010). Ingénieurs Sans Frontières in France: From humanitarian ideals to
engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 21-26.
Parkinson, A. (2007). Engineering study abroad programs: Formats, challenges, best
practices. Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, 2(2): 1-15.
Parson, L. B. (1996). Engineering in context: engineering in developing countries.
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 122(4), 170-
176.

228

Pavlik, B. J., Sangster, J. L., Parsely, I. C., Knudsen, E. M., Ndrianajasoloarivony, Z.,
Patterson, D. J., Bartelt-Hunt, S. L., & Jones, E. G. (2013). Solar energy for rural
Madagascar schools: a pilot implementation by university of Nebraska engineers
without borders-USA. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering,
8(2), 24-42.
PeaceCorps (2005). PACA: Using participatory analysis for community action. Retrieved
from http://files.peacecorps.gov/library/M0086
Pierrakos, O., Nagel, R., Pappas, E., Nagel, J., Moran, T., Barella, E., & Panizo, M.
(2013). A mixed-method study of cognitive and affective learning during a
sophomore design problem-based service learning experience. International Journal
for Service Learning in Engineering, Special Edition, 1-28.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World
Development, 23, 1247–1263.
Ramirez, M. C., Bengo, I., Mereu, R., Bejerano R., A. X. B., & Silva, J. C. (2011).
Participative methodology for local development: the contribution of engineers
without borders from Italy and Colombia: towards the improvement of water quality
in vulnerable communities. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 24, 45-66.
Riley, D. (2007). Resisting neoliberalism in global development engineering. Proceeding
of the ). 2007 ASEE conference and exhibition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 22-25.
Riley, D. (2008). Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.
Ruth, M., Maggio, J., Whelan, K., DeYoung, M., May, J., Peterson, A., & Paterson, K.
(2013). Kitchen 2.0: Design guidance for healthier cooking environments.
International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Special Edition, 151–169.

229

Saldaña, J. (2010). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. (2006). Different Worlds and Common Ground: Community
Partner Perspectives on Campus-Community Partnerships. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learnign, 13(1), 30-43
Schneider, J., Leydens, J. A., &, Lucena, J. (2008). Where is ‘community’? Engineering
education and sustainable community development. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 33(3), 307-319.
Schneider, J., Lucena, J., & Leydens, J. A. (2009). Engineering to help: The value of
critique in engineering service. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 43-48.
Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. NewYork:
Harper Torchbooks.
Sianipar, C. P. M., Taufiq, H., Etiningtyas, H. R., Dowako, K., Adhiutama, A., &
Yudoko, G. (2013). Materials selection in appropriate technology: four focuses in
design thinking. Advanced Materials Research, 789, 379-382.
Sianipar, C., P. M., Yudoko, G., Dowaki, K., & Adhiutama, A. (2013). Design
methodology for appropriate technology: engineering as if people mattered.
Sustainability, 5, 3382-3425.
Sirolli, E. (2012). Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!. Retrieved from

Stevens, R., Johri, A., & O’Connor, K. (2014). Professional engineering work. In J.
Aditya and B. M. Olds (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education
Research (pp. 119-138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

230

Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (2009). The Unheard Voices. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Tendick-Matesanz, F., Ahonen, E. Q., Zellner, M., L., & Lacey, S. E. (2015). Applying
evaluative thinking to a community-engaged safe drinking water project in peri-urban
Guatemala. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian
Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 59-79.
The Pennsylvania State University. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.sedtapp.psu.edu/humanitarian/about.php
Third, K., Fun, O. M., Bowen, J., Micenko, A., Grey, V., & Prohasky, T. (2009).
Engineers Without Borders Australia–lessons learned from an innovative approach to
the upgrade of water supply infrastructure in Tenganan, Indonesia. Water Science &
Technology, 59(6), 1201-1207.
Thompson, J. D. (2014). Engineering Community Engagement Partnerships:
Investigating Motivation, Nature, And Structure. Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI
Dissertations Publishing.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: eight ”big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837 – 851.
Trevelyan, J. P., & Tilli, S. (2007). Published Research on Engineering Work. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(4), 300-307.
UMass-Lowell. (2014). SLICE. Retrieved from http://www.uml.edu/engineering/slice/
VanderSteen, J. D. J. (2008) Humanitarian Engineering in the Engineering Curriculum.
PhD thesis, Civil Engineering, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University.

231

Vandersteen, J. D. J., Baillie, C. A., & Hall, K. R. (2009). International Humanitarian
Engineering: Who benefits and who pays?. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine,
32-41.
Veldhuizen, L. van; Waters-Bayer, A.; Zeeuw, H. de. (1997). Developing Technology
With Farmers: A Trainer’s Guide For Participatory Learning. London: Zed Books.
VeneKlasen, L., & Miller, V. (2002). A New Wave of Power, People and Politics: The
Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation. Oklahoma City: World
Neighbours.
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive
engineering education research: Reflections on an example study. Journal of
Engineering Education, 102(4), 626-659.
Walton, R., & DeRenzi, B. (2009). Value-sensitive design and health care in Africa. ieee
transactions on professional communication, 52(4), 346-357.
Wang C. & Burris A. (1997) Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory
needs assessment. Health Education and Behavior, 24, 369–387
White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticizing development: The uses and abuses of participation.
Development in Practice, 6(1), 6-15.
White, L., & Taket, A. (1997). Beyond appraisal: Participatory appraisal of needs and the
development of action (PANDA). International Journal of Management Science,
25(5), 523-534.
Winter, V A. G. (2006). Assessment of wheelchair technology in Tanzania. International
Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 2(1), 60-77.

232

Worcester Polytechnic Institute. (2014). Global Perspective Program. Retrieved from
http://www.wpi.edu/academics/igsd/gpp.html
Worrall, L. (2007). Asking the Community: A case Stucy of Community Partner
Perspectives. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 5-17.
Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students’ ways of
experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28-
59.

APPENDICES

233

Appendix A: Search Strings for Qualitative Systematized Review
In table A.1, I report the search strings that I used for the QRS, the associated search ID,
and the number of retrieved papers before dropping duplicates and applying inclusion
criteria. Table A.2 reports the number of paper discarded and kept at each selection step
and for each search string.
Table A.1. Search Strings, Their ID Numbers, and Number of Papers Found
Search string Search ID Found
“humanitarian engineering” 1 34
“humanitarian technology” 2 27
“sustainable development” AND “developing countries” AND students 3 15
“sustainable development” AND “developing world” 4 205
“sustainable development” AND underdeveloped 5 71
“sustainable development” AND “developing communities” 6 13
“sustainable development” AND underserved 7 10
“sustainable community development” 8 30
“participatory development” 9 67
participatory AND “developing countries” 10 158
participatory AND “developing world” 11 13
participatory AND “developing communities” 12 3
participatory AND underdeveloped 13 5
participatory AND underserved 14 5
“Community participation” AND engineering 15 87
“Community participation” AND “developing countries” 16 49
“Community participation” AND “developing world” 17 9
“Community participation” AND underserved 18 2
“Community participation” AND underdeveloped 19 0
“Poverty alleviation” AND engineering 20 82
“social justice” AND engineering 21 57
“social justice” AND “developing countries” 22 25
“social justice” AND “developing world” 23 7

234

“social justice” AND underserved 24 0
“social justice” AND underdeveloped 25 0
“participatory technology” 26 16
“participatory design” AND “developing countries” 27 12
“participatory design” AND “developing world” 28 2
“participatory design” AND underdeveloped 29 0
“participatory design” AND underserved 30 0
“participatory design” AND vulnerable 31 5
“engineers without borders” 32 53
“bridges to prosperity” 33 0
“engineering world health” 34 4
“rural appraisal” 35 25
“human centered design” AND “developing countries” 36 4
“human centered design” AND “developing world” 37 2
“human centered design” AND underdeveloped 38 0
“human centered design” AND underserved 39 0
“design toolkit” 40 0
“appropriate technology” AND “developing countries” 41 71
“appropriate technology” AND “developing world” 42 15
“appropriate technology” AND underdeveloped 43 6
“appropriate technology” AND underserved 44 3
“appropriate technology” AND design 45 216
“Engineers against poverty” 46 7
“Practical Action” AND engineering 47 33
Sub-total 1448

235

Table A2. Number of Paper Discarded and Kept at Each Selection Step
Step 1 – Title and source
screening
Step 2 – Abstract
Screening
Step 3 – Full Text
Appraisal
Search
ID
Found Duplicates
(n)
Discarded
(n)
Kept
(n)
Discarded
(n)
Kept
(n)
Discarded
(n)
Kept
(n)
1 34 8 8 18 12 6 4 2
2 27 2 19 6 5 1 0 1
3 15 0 11 4 3 1 1 0
4 205 33 160 12 9 3 3 0
5 71 8 59 4 2 2 1 1
6 13 5 5 3 3 0 0 0
7 10 4 5 1 1 0 0 0
8 30 7 17 6 3 3 1 2
9 67 14 45 8 4 4 3 1
10 158 30 111 17 11 6 1 5
11 13 9 3 1 1 0 0 0
12 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
13 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
14 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
15 87 9 67 11 7 4 2 2
16 49 13 24 12 10 2 1 1
17 9 8 1 0 0 0 0 0
18 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 82 6 67 9 6 3 2 1
21 57 8 46 3 2 1 0 1
22 25 3 18 4 4 0 0 0
23 7 5 0 2 2 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 16 2 9 5 3 2 2 0
27 12 10 1 1 1 0 0 0
28 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 0
32 53 12 13 28 21 7 4 3
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 4 1 1 2 2 0 0 0
35 25 3 22 0 0 0 0 0

236

36 4 1 0 3 1 2 1 1
37 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 71 12 43 16 12 4 2 2
42 15 10 4 1 1 0 0 0
43 6 2 3 1 0 1 0 1
44 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
45 216 70 134 12 10 2 1 1
46 7 1 6 0 0 0 0 0
47 33 6 19 8 7 1 0 1
Subtotal 1448 314 934 200 145 55 29 26
IJSLE 26 4 22 Final Total 81 33 48

237
Appendix B: List of Collected Methods
Table B.1. List of methods along with their sources and other characteristics based on the classification system of chapter 5.
method Direct source(s) Design Phase Generic goal Specific goal participation level
A.R.T (Action-Research-Training)
Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
To plan a project A.R.T. helps you assess the balance and integration of three project components: (i) actions, aimed at achieving project or program goals, (ii) research, consisting of data collection and analysis, and (iii) training, involving capacity-building events and strategies.
Passive
Arena model Bowen and Acciaioli (2015) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
To model the relationships among all the stakeholders Passive
Back-it-out IDEO (2014) Problem Framing and Planning
to formulate goals/objectives To rearticulate the problems or needs into opportunity areas. Passive
BEGINNERS MIND IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
To foster self-awareness 1. to identify and set aside desingers’ personal biases passive

238
BRAINSTORM IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
to brainstorm solutions Passive
Build on the Idea IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
To gather feedback on prototyped solutions Consultative
Calendars Almedom et al. (1997); Freudenberger (2008); PeaceCorps (2005)
Context-Related Information Gathering
To understand socio-cultural, political, and economical aspects of a community
To obtain detailed information on the activities of local men, women, and children at different times of the year.
Co-constructive
CAPABILITIES QUICK SHEET IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
1. to understand what capabilities a proposed solutions requires passive
Causal Dynamics Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem Causal Dynamics helps you assess the causes of a key problem and the way each cause interacts with other causes.
Co-constructive
Comparing and sorting objects Beebe (2001) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals Consultative
COMPETING GOALS Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to rank goals/objectives 1. rank stakeholder’s goals co-constructive
Create Framework IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data analysis To understand issues and relationships in a clear, holistic way Passive

239
DAILY ACTIVITIES PeaceCorps (2005) Context-Related Information Gathering
To understand socio-cultural, political, and economical aspects of a community
1. to identify the routine labor demands of community members co-constructive
Diagrams IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data analysis To map out how ideas related to a solution relate to each other and 2. how processes and experiences change over time.
Passive
EXPERT INTERVIEWS IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
2. to gain technological adivices passive
FIND THEMES IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data analysis 1. to share what designers learned and find important themes passive
Focus groups Beebe (2001); IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from a group of individuals Consultative
FORCE FIELD Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem 1. understand people’s view about the factors that cause a problem and those that counter attack it or stop it
co-constructive
FRAME THE DESIGN CHALLENGE
IDEO (2014) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem 1. to frame the design challenge passive

240
Gaps and Conflicts Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem Th is technique helps you fi nd out if your key problem is mostly about gaps or confl icts in power, interests (gains and losses), moral values, or information and communication.
Consultative
Gender roles/tasks analysis
Almedom et al. (1997) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
To find out which activities or tasks are acceptable for men, which are assigned to women, and which are acceptable for both men and women in the local culture, and why.
Consultative
Historyline Almedom et al. (1997); Freudenberger (2008)
Context-Related Information Gathering
To understand socio-cultural, political, and economical aspects of a community
To investigate local history in general terms Co-constructive
HUMAN CAPABILITIES MATRIX
Leydens and Lucena (2014) Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
1. to evaluate different proposed solution based on their potential to enhance human capabilities
passive
IDEAL SCENARIO Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to formulate goals/objectives 1. to develop visions of objectives co-constructive
INSPIRATION IN NEW PLACES IDEO (2014) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem 1. to get a fresh perspective on the problem passive

241
Message board Magoon et al. (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals or groups Consultative
MODELS IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
1. to create a physical and cheap model of a possilbe solution passive
Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) Garfi and Ferrer-Mati (2011)
Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
performance criteria and evaluation indicators that can be applied in MCA for water and basic sanitation roject assessment in small rural communities of developing countries, including technical, social, economic and environmental aspects
Passive
Obervations Beebe (2001); Almedom et al. (1997); IDEO (2014)
Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals or groups Consultative
OBERVE VS INTERPRET IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
To foster self-awareness 1. to identify and set aside desingers’ personal biases passive

242
OPTION DOMAIN Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to formulate goals/objectives 1. develop options of actions co-constructive
Order and Chaos Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
To plan a project to identify the planning approach you need by answering two questions. Th e questions are: how do you assess your chances of achieving your project or program goals, and how confi dent are you in the knowledge that you have about the conditions or factors aff ecting your plan?
Passive
Participatory Co-Design IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
1. to co-create a prototype co-constructive
Participatory Mapping Beebe (2001); Almedom et al. (1997), Freudenberger (2008); PeaceCorps (2005)
Context-Related Information Gathering
To map the community To identify physical aspects of a community Co-constructive
PHOTOVOICE Aslam et al. (2013); Wang and Burris (1997)
Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection 1. to enable people to record and reflect their community’s trengths and concerns co-constructive

243
PLANNING TOOLS 2 – Solutions
Freudenberger (2008) Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
2. to select what solutions the communities wants to use co-constructive
PRIORITY RANKING PeaceCorps (2005) Problem Framing and Planning
to rank goals/objectives 1. rank stakeholder’s goals co-constructive
PRIVILEGE BY NUMBERS Leydens and Lucena (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
To foster self-awareness 1. fosters awareness of how invisible privileges are until they are discussed explicitly
passive
PRIVILEGE WALK Leydens and Lucena (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
To foster self-awareness 1. to raise awareness about one personal social status passive
Problem Ranking Matrix Freudenberger (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to rank goals/objectives 1. to priortize what problems the community wishes to address co-constructive
PROBLEM TREE Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem 1. analyze first and second-level causes and effects of a problem co-constructive
Questionnaires Beebe (2001) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals or groups Consultative

244
Role Dynamics Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
assess what stakeholders expect of each other or themselves, as a result of a contract, a promise or a moral responsibility, and how satisfi ed they are with how stakeholders perform their roles.
Co-constructive
ROLE-PLAY IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
1. to gain perspective and understanding of the emotional experience using a proposed solution
passive
SECONDARY RESEARCH Beebe (2001); Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals or groups passive
SELF-DOCUMENTATION IDEO (2014) Context-Related Information Gathering
To understand socio-cultural, political, and economical aspects of a community
1. to understand the nuances of community life consultative

245
Semi-structured interview Beebe (2001); Almedom et al. (1997); IDEO (2014); Freudenberger (2008)
Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals Consultative
Social Analysis Clip Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
create profi les of the parties involved in a core problem or action. Th ese profi les are based on four factors: (i) power, (ii) interests, (iii) legitimacy, and (iv) existing relations of collaboration and confl ict.
Consultative
SOCIAL DOMAIN Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
1. to understand relations and charateristics of stakeholders co-constructive
STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
1. to identify stakeholders that are effected and have infulence on the project
Consultative
STORY BOARDS IDEO (2014) Solution Development To Ideate and Prototype a solution
1. to gain perspective and understanding of the story of user’s experience using a proposed solution
passive

246
Structured Decision Making Avrai and Post (2012) Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
involving affected stakeholders in decisions about POU water treatment systems
Consultative
Sustainability Matrix McConville and Mihelcic (2007) Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
Passive
SWOT – AHP Okello et al. (2014) Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
to apprais alternatives using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Consultative
Teather Ones (2013) Context-Related Information Gathering
Multipurpose – data collection Gather a variety of information from individuals or groups Co-constructive
THE COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Freudenberger (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
To plan a project 1. to create an action plan co-constructive
TIMELINE Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
to understand a problem 1. to understand how a problem orgininated and evolved over time co-constructive
ToolsMatrix Freudenberger (2008) Problem Framing and Planning
To plan a project to plan how to gather needed information passive

247
TRANSECT WALKS or Systematic Walkabout
Almedom et al. (1997); Freudenberger (2008)
Context-Related Information Gathering
To map the community 1. To map thep physical aspects of a community consultative
V.I.P. (Values, Interests, Positions
Chevalier and Buckles (2008) Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
compare the positions that stakeholders take on a problem or action with their actual interests and the moral values they hold.
Consultative
VALUE SENSITIVE TECHNICAL INVESTICATION
Frideman et al 2006 Solution Development to evaluate possible solutions or courses of action
1. to compare possible technological solutions based on stakeholders’ values passive
VALUE SENSTIVE CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATONS
Frideman et al 2006 Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
1. to understand what values are important for direct and indirect stakeholders
consultative
VENN DIAGRAM or SOCIAL NETWORK MAPPING
Freudenberger (2008); PeaceCorps (2005)
Context-Related Information Gathering
to identify and characterize project participants and stakeholders
1. to understand the internal organization of a community and its relationship to the external enviroment
co-constructive
WEALTH RANKING Freudenberger (2008) Context-Related Information Gathering
To understand socio-cultural, political, and economical aspects of a community
1. to understand wealth and resources distribution within communities co-constructive

248

Appendix C: Possible Participation Framework for Classification of Methods
Based on the participation ladders that I reviewed in Chapter 2, I constructed a new
participation ladder (see table B.1). In this framework, I evaluate participation based on
the five dimensions: 1) who gets to decide?, 2) how does information flow?, 3) what
weight is given to the information?, 4) what methods are used?, and 4) what roles each
counterpart plays?. The framework is organized in hierarchical rungs to indicate an
increase in locals’ participation. However, it should not be seen as a ladder that goes from
worst to best, rather, humanitarian engineering should choose the most appropriate rung
based on the situation in which they are (understanding this is the second goal of this
dissertation, see RQ2). In this framework, I use the term ‘outsiders’ to describe the
humanitarian engineers and any other organization (e.g., NGOs) with whom
humanitarian engineers are partnering. Instead, I use ‘locals’ to describe the local
communities members whom the engineers are trying to serve. In this section, I provide a
brief but thorough description of each rung and then I describe how it could be used to
make conclusions about communities’ participation in HE projects.
Rung 1: No participation
This is the case when locals are not involved in decision-making at any degree:
 Who makes the decisions? Only the outsiders decide.
 How information flow? Information does not flow between outsiders and locals.
 How much weight information has on decisions? Because no information flows,
locals’ opinions, knowledge, values or others cannot influence decision-making.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? No method is used.

249

 What roles are played in decision-making? The outsiders can be seen as dictators,
while the locals do not play any role.
Rung 2: Decorative
The relationship between outsiders and locals is the same described at the
previous rung. However, at this rung outsider pretend that the locals are making
meaningful contributions.
 Who makes the decisions? Only the outsiders decide.
 How information flow? It appears that information is flowing and that locals are
involved, but in reality, it is not the case.
 How much weight information has on decisions? Because no information flows,
locals’ opinions, knowledge, values or others cannot influence decision-making.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? No method is used.
 What roles are played in decision-making? The HE project can be seen as a house,
the outsiders as the landlords who want to sell or rent the house, while the locals
as candleholders or other decorative objects that are used to make the house look
better than it really is.
Rung 3: Passive
This is the first rung in which locals are truly involved. However, they are simply
assigned and informed (Hart, 1992).
 Who makes the decisions? Only the outsiders decide.
 How information flow? Information flows from outsiders who communicate what
decisions they made to the locals.

250

 How much weight information has on decisions? As for the rungs above, because
no information flows to the outsiders, locals’ opinions, knowledge, values or
others cannot influence decision-making.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? The information could be
delivered with presentations, public notices, press release, exhibitions, or other
one-way methods.
 What roles are played in decision-making? The outsiders could be seen as actors
and actresses who are performing in front of an audience (the locals). The
audience could like or dislike what done by the actor and actresses, but cannot do
much about it.
Rung 4: Functional
In this rung, locals are allowed to express opinions but are still the outsiders that
keep control on when to involve locals and what weight to give to locals’ opinions.
 Who makes the decisions? Only the outsiders decide.
 How information flow? The information flows from the locals to the outsiders.
Although there might be some informal exchange, the relationship is not dialectic.
 How much weight information has on decisions? It is up to the outsiders to decide
whether or not to use gathered information.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? Methods to gather
information include surveys, comment cards, feedback channels, one-on-one
interviews, focus groups and others.

251

 What roles are played in decision-making? In this case, the outsiders are acting as
planners who are trying to collect information to improve the effectiveness of the
project, while the locals can be seen as data-points. It is up to the planners to
decide if the data-points are valuable or are outliers to be discarded.
Rung 5: Empathic.
In this rung, outsiders are committed to include locals’ realities in the decision-
making process and in doing so they open space for locals to make some decisions,
although outsiders keep most of decision-making power.
 Who makes the decisions? Outsiders and locals make decisions together, however
decision-making power is mostly on outsiders’ hands.
 How information flow? Information flows is two-ways, with an emphasis on
outsiders gathering information from the locals.
 How much weight information has on decisions? Information is gathered and
delivered with a commitment of the outsiders to involve locals’ opinions, values,
and knowledge in decision-making.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? Methods may include
workshops, bilateral sessions, focus groups, users or stakeholder panels, and
interaction in informal setting and social situations.
 What roles are played in decision-making? As for the previous rung, outsiders act
as researchers. However, locals are seen as subject-matter-experts (SME) whose
knowledge, opinions, and values cannot be dismissed.

252

Rung 6: Collaborative.
To move from empathic to collaborative, outsiders must allow communities to
take part in decision-making as equals.
 Who makes the decisions? Outsiders and locals have equal decision-making
power.
 How information flow? Information is constantly shared among outsiders and
locals.
 How much weight information has on decisions? Information is shared with a
commitment of both the outsiders and locals to value each other realities.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? Outsiders introduce
participatory methods, such for instance PRA. Thus, there will be a phase were
outsiders are leading while locals are learning.
 What roles are played in decision-making? In this rung, both the outsiders and
locals can be seen as partners.
Rung 7: Collegial.
This the first rung were the locals hold most of decision-making, although the
outsiders have still some degree of control.
 Who makes the decisions? Locals make the decisions with the support and
guidance of the outsiders.
 How information flow? Information flows is two-ways, with an emphasis on
locals gathering information from outsiders.

253

 How much weight information has on decisions? Information gathered from
outsiders is highly valued.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? Methods are the same used in
collaborative and empathic relationships.
 What roles are played in decision-making? Locals can be seen as agents who take
control and change their world. While outsiders can be seen as facilitators or
catalysts who support and enable locals to take control. Rung 8: Self-mobilized
This is the last rung where locals act independently than outsiders.
 Who makes the decisions? Only the locals decide.
 How information flow? Locals gather information from outsiders.
 How much weight information has on decisions? Locals may or may not use the
information they gather from the outsiders.
 How information is gathered, delivered, or shared? Methods could be the same
used in the functional and passive rungs.
 What roles are played in decision-making? Locals can be seen as drivers who, if
they feel lost, may consult their GPS (the outsiders) to ask for information.
However, it is up to them to decide whether or not to trust and use the information
coming from the GPS.

254
Table B.1: Levels of Communities’ Participation in Humanitarian Engineering Projects
This framework aims at evaluating the extent to which communities participate in Humanitarian Engineering projects.
Levels of Participation No participation Decorative Passive Functional Empathic Collaborative Collegial Self-mobilized Dimensions Description
Who makes decisions? Capital letters indicate greater decision-making power.
OUTSIDERS OUTSIDERS + locals
OUTSIDERS + LOCALS
Outsiders + LOCALS LOCALS
How information flows?
Describes the direction of the information flow that may influence decision-making. Thickness of the arrow indicates flow rate.
No flow
Info appears to be gathered or delivered, but it is not in reality.
OL to OL
OL to OL O
L OL OL
OL to OL
How much weight information has on decisions?
Descries the extent to which decision makers let information influence their decisions.
No information to decision makers, so information cannot influence decision making.
May or may not influence Influence
May or may not influence
How is info gathered, delivered, or shared?
Lists of typical methods used to deliver, gather, or share information. No method is used
Presentations, public notice, press release, exhibitions
Surveys, comment cards, feedback channels, interviews, focus groups
Stakeholder panels, focus groups, interviews, interactions in informal settings and social situations
Participatory learning and action research methods.
What roles are played in decision-making?
Metaphors for roles of outsiders Dictators landlords Actors Actresses Planners Researchers Partners
Catalysts GPS
Metaphors for roles of locals Candleholders Audience Data points Experts Agents Drivers

VITA

255

VITA

Andrea Mazzurco
Current Position
Purdue University May 2015 – Jul 2016
Graduate Research Assistant
Education
Purdue University Aug 2016
Doctor of Philosophy, Engineering Education
Dissertation: “Methods to Facilitate Community Participation in Humanitarian
Engineering Projects: Laying the Foundation for a Learning Platform.”
Purdue University Dec 2011
Master of Science, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering
Politecnico di Milano Jan 2011
Bachelor of Science, Aerospace Engineering Milan, Italy

256

Past Positions
Purdue University Jan 2015 – Sep 2016
Co-coordinator, Global Engineering Education Collaboratory (GEEC)
Purdue University
Future Faculty Fellow, First Year Engineering May 2014 – May 2015
Peer Reviewed Journal Papers
Mazzurco, A., & Jesiek, B. (under review). A synthesis of community participation
frameworks to inform humanitarian engineering best practices. IEEE Technology and
Society.
Philips, C. M. L., Joslyn, C. H., & Mazzurco, A. (under review). Social justice in the
engineering curriculum: Course modules to challenge the dominant engineering culture.
International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace.
Mazzurco, A., Huff, J. L., & Jesiek, B. K. (2014). The Energy Conversion Playground
(ECP) design task: Assessing how students think about technical and non-technical
considerations in sustainable community development. International Journal for Service
Learning in Engineering, 9(2), 64-84.
Jesiek, B., Zhu, Q., Woo, S., Thompson, J., & Mazzurco, A. (2014). Global engineering
competency in context: Situations and behaviors. Online Journal for Global Engineering
Education.

257

Peer Reviewed Conference Papers
Jesiek, B. K., Trellinger, N. M., Mazzurco, A. (2016). Becoming boundary spanning
engineers: Research methods and preliminary findings. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference
and Exposition.
Jesiek, B. K., Mazzurco, A., & Trellinger, N. M. (2015). Becoming boundary spanners in
engineering: Identifying roles, activities, and competencies. Proceedings of the 2015
IEEE Frontiers in Education Annual Conference.
Mazzurco A., Zhu, Q., Wuji G., & Zhao, F. (2014). A comparative study of clay brick
and fly ash brick in USA and China: Environmental and sociocultural perspectives.
Proceedings of 2014 International Symposium on Sustainable Systems & Technologies.
Mazzurco A., & Jesiek, B. K. (2014). Learning from failure: developing a typology to
enhance global service-learning engineering projects. Proceedings of 2014 ASEE
Conference and Exhibition.
Mazzurco A., Huff J. L., & Jesiek, B. K. (2013). Raising student’s cultural awareness
through design scenario. Proceedings of 2013 ASEE Conference and Exhibition.
Mazzurco A., Jesiek B., & Ramane K. (2012). Are Engineering Students Culturally
Intelligent? Preliminary Results of a Multi-Institutional Survey. Proceedings of 2013
ASEE Conference and Exhibition.

258

Presentations, Workshops, Invited Talks, and Posters
Philips, C. M. L., Joslyn, C. H., & Mazzurco, A. (2015). Social justice in the engineering
curriculum: Course modules to challenge the dominant engineering culture. 2015
Engineering Social Justice and Peace Conference.
Mazzurco, A. (2015). Methods to meaningfully engage community members in
humanitarian engineering projects. 2015 Engineering Social Justice and Peace
Conference.
Mazzurco, A., & Jesiek, B. K. (2015). Classification of problem framing and solving
methods for humanitarian engineering. Poster at the 2015 Humanitarian Technology
Conference, Boston, May 12-14.
Jesiek, B. K., Mazzurco, A., Lucena, J. C., Lehr, J., Thompson, J. (2014). Frontiers of
humanitarian engineering: Learning from social justice, feminism, and failures.
Workshop at the 2014 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, San José, CA.
Mazzurco A. (2013). Engenharia dos oprimidos: A model of participatory engineering
project for sustainable community development. 2013 Engineering, Social Justice, and
Peace Conference

Blank Page

THE

ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FOR GREEN STORMWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

A Dissertation

Presented

the Graduate School of

Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Civil Engineering

Nicole Barclay

August 2016

Accepted by

Leidy Klotz, Committee Chair

Caitlin Dyckman

Catherine Mobley

David Morgan Young

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 – 1346

ProQuest 10152046

Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest Number: 10152046

ABSTRACT

The primary objective of this research is to understand the role of

community

participation in green stormwater infrastructure development. Even though the literature

affirms the need for community participation to facilitate its implementation, no study in

the engineering literature examines this idea with an in-depth, descriptive case study. It is

important to understand how technical and non-technical factors interact to promote or

hinder its implementation.

This work uses the qualitative case study methodology to fulfil the objective and

answer the research questions. The case study is based on the

Proctor Creek

Watershed,

Atlanta Georgia, a rapidly growing urban area located in the southeastern United States.

Data sources include participant interviews, documents, and field notes, which are

analyzed through deductive coding. The deductive codes are informed by this study’s

conceptual framework.

Findings reveal that community participation in this case is embedded in

collaborative partnership efforts. Also, social conditions highly influence the

participation processes by dictating the priorities the community develops during

participation processes. Factors such as funding and political support promote green

stormwater infrastructure implementation more so than community participation.

However, community education addresses the challenge of green

stormwater

infrastructure perspectives; hence community education plays a role in

implementation.

These findings affirm existing literature adding to the development of current theories.

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my parents, Mervyn and Desarie Barclay. They provided

constant love, support and encouragement throughout my formal education, especially at

this last stage. I believe that my mother’s constant prayers and my father’s unwavering

confidence in me gave me the determination I needed to complete my Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Above of all, I thank God who is faithful and has continually given me grace and

strength throughout all my endeavors.

I am sincerely grateful for my advisor, Dr. Leidy Klotz. He invested in me from

my time as an undergraduate student and continued throughout my four years as a

graduate student. I am especially grateful for the opportunities Dr. Klotz gave me to

develop as a teacher. Thanks to all my committee members Dr. David Morgan Young,

Dr. Catherine Mobley and Dr. Caitlin Dyckman, for their expert advice and guidance

throughout this study. I am appreciative of the time they all took to serve on my

committee. I am particularly thankful for Dr. Denise Simmons, my longest academic

mentor and a constant inspiration to me.

Thanks to all the interview participants for sharing their time, insights, knowledge

and experiences to inform my study.

I am blessed to have an incredible family. Despite the distance, my parents and

my sisters, Renee Barclay-Rochester and Kezia Barclay are always just a phone call away

for refreshing, encouraging and fun conversations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. i

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii

DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………………………………………………………. iv

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………

vii

LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………

viii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………..

Background …………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Problem Statement ………………………………………………………………………..

Research Objective and Questions…………………………………………………..

Significance of Research………………………………………………………………..

Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………….

Research Area ………………………………………………………………………………

Case Study Selection……………………………………………………………………

Outline of Dissertation …………………………………………………………………

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …………

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Stormwater Infrastructure ……………………………………………………………. 16

Benefits of Using Green stormwater infrastructure ………………………….

Green Stormwater Infrastructure Implementation Challenges …………..

Community Participation in Infrastructure Projects ………………………… 20

Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation …………….

Defining Community Participation ………………………………………………..

Levels of Participation and Mechanisms ………………………………………..

Green stormwater infrastructure and Community Participation …………

Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………………..

Process of Developing the Conceptual Framework ………………………….

Framework Description ………………………………………………………………. 33

Chapter Summary ……………………………………………………………………….

III. CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………….

Introduction and Overview ………………………………………………………….. 45

Considerations for Choosing the Case Study Methodology ………………

Choice of Methodology ……………………………………………………………….

Overview of Case Study Methodology …………………………………………..

Data Collection Methods ……………………………………………………………..

Data Analysis and Synthesis …………………………………………………………

Validity and Reliability ………………………………………………………………..

Research Limitations …………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Summary ……………………………………………………………………….

IV. CONTEXT FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….. 60

Context Description ……………………………………………………………………. 60

Chapter Summary ……………………………………………………………………….

V. PROCESS, OUTPUT, AND IMPLEMENTATION

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION …………………………………………………..

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….. 70

Process Description ……………………………………………………………………..

Output Description ………………………………………………………………………

Implementation Description………………………………………………………….

Summary of Findings and Discussion ………………………………………….

103

VI. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………

106

Research Contributions ……………………………………………………………… 106

Implications of Findings …………………………………………………………….

108

Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………………..

109

APPENDICES

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

111

A: Informed Consent…………………………………………………………………………… 111

B: Interview Protocol …………………………………………………………………………..

113

C: List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………..

116

D: Codebook ………………………………………………………………………………………

118

E: Data Reference Counts ……………………………………………………………………

119

Page

Table of Contents (Continued)

vii

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………

121

Page
Table of Contents (Continued)

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Stages of Implementation ………………………………………………………………….

3.1 Interviewees represent a range of stakeholders …………………………………….

5.1 Discrete community participation processes

for green stormwater infrastructure ……………………………………………….

5.2 Green stormwater infrastructure forums and conference details ……………..

7.1 Reference counts for coded data ………………………………………………………. 119

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Topographic map of Proctor Creek Watershed ……………………………………… 7

2.1 Increasing impacts of participation ……………………………………………………..

2.2 A conceptual framework for collaborative

watershed management ………………………………………………………………..

2.3 The interacting themes and attributes for the

the case study ……………………………………………………………………………..

5.1 Timeline of process events described in this

study …………………………………………………………………………………………. 73

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background

Growing population combined with rapid worldwide urbanization, both projected

to continue significant increase in the future (United Nations, 2014) undoubtedly strains

aging and deteriorating urban infrastructure, if that infrastructure exists in the first place.

Urban population increases and expanding city limits add more square miles of

impervious surfaces highlighting the need for more upgraded stormwater infrastructure

systems. Surfaces such as roads, parking lots and building roofs all contribute to the

alteration of natural water flows resulting in higher water runoff quantity and impaired

runoff quality entering waterways. There is a clear relationship between progressive

urbanization of a watershed and increased risk of flooding (Nirupama & Simonovic,

2007; Saghafian et al, 2007). Stormwater pollution poses additional challenges as

stormwater runoff becomes a water pollutant when it picks up physical, chemical and

biological pollutants before entering waterways (Goonetilleke et al, 2005). Climate

change impacts exacerbate these problems associated with urbanization since more

frequent and more intense storm events are occurring and expected to continue.

Stormwater management ̶ controlling stormwater runoff quality and quantity with

structural and non-structural measures (Marsalek & Chocat, 2002) ̶ requires large and

constant investments to maintain (Niemczynowicz, 1999). In cities across the US, the

capacity of current stormwater management systems need to be adapted to meet the

demands necessary to sustain good health and quality of life. The capital investment

necessary for adapting these systems is well into billions for the next fifty years

(Neumann et al., 2014). For example, the city of Atlanta faces startling pecuniary

repercussions if they do not address storm water management in the near future. Costs for

adaptations of urban drainage could exceed 10 million dollars per year until 2050. To

combat the problem of combined sewer overflows that occur when there is excessive

flow into sewer systems after heavy rainfall events, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) instituted consent decrees to eliminate combined sewer systems

throughout the U.S. This requires billions of dollars in investment for new pipes and

equipment alone (ASCE, 2013). A U.S.

EPA

report (2008) specified that $63.6 billion is

needed for combined sewer overflow correction and $42.3 billion for stormwater

management. The $42.3 billion stormwater management national costs considers

conveyance infrastructure, treatment systems, green stormwater infrastructure and

general stormwater management (U.S. EPA, 2008).

There is a disparity of stormwater management strategies and development at an

international level; nevertheless, all countries recognize stormwater management as an

important environmental issue (Marsalek & Chocat, 2002). Countries such as Australia,

Canada and Sweden, are among the most advanced in sustainable stormwater

management practices and research. For example, Swedish communities practiced

reusing stormwater in news homes as early as 1990s (Niemczynowicz, 1999). In contrast,

urban areas of developing countries experience stormwater management problems due to

unplanned development and lack of drainage construction (Butler & Parkinson, 1997;

Parkinson & Mark, 2005). Flooding in these areas tends to result in water borne and

vector disease outbreaks due to unsanitary conditions.

Urban stormwater management affects the lives of all who reside in urban areas,

and necessitates the interaction of technology for infrastructure, environmental policies

and public participation. As such, there is a recognized need that its success depends on

public engagement through support and participation (Marsalek & Chocat, 2002).

Problem Statement

Considering the need for capital investment in stormwater infrastructure, urban

communities across the U.S. are seeking to invest in green stormwater infrastructure as a

way to reduce overflows from stormwater and sewer discharges (U.S. EPA, 2008).

Green

stormwater infrastructure acts as a supplement to traditional stormwater systems,

addressing runoff quantity and quality at its source, thus reducing and treating the volume

of runoff before it enters traditional systems.

As an emerging technology, several challenges exist as barriers to its

implementation, and one such problem is “engendering meaningful participation from

multiple stakeholders” (Montalto et al., 2012 p. 1190). By its very nature, green

stormwater infrastructure facilitates engagement from a wider range of stakeholders than

traditional stormwater infrastructure. And therefore presents an opportunity to capitalize

on coordinating participation for project success. In particular, the community is a

stakeholder group that directly experiences the impact of the infrastructure, or lack

thereof, as it pertains to their quality of life. Thus, it is worth pursuing in a more guided

structure, how community participation plays a role in green stormwater infrastructure

planning and implementation.

Research Objectives

The purpose of conducting the case study is to convey a comprehensive

understanding of community participation in decisions for green stormwater

infrastructure. As such, the primary objective of this research is to study the context,

community participation processes, outputs, and implementation for green stormwater

infrastructure within the bounds of the selected case, Proctor Creek Watershed in Atlanta

Georgia.

To investigate the objectives, this research is guided by the following questions:

How do community participation mechanisms facilitate decisions for green

stormwater

infrastructure?

How do context features and community participation processes influence

implementation of green stormwater infrastructure solutions?

To answer the research questions, this study applies the qualitative case study

methodology to gain an understanding of the role of community participation processes

in green stormwater infrastructure planning and implementation. The case is a single

study which employs participant interviews and document review. The data analysis is

done by deductive coding, using the attributes in the conceptual framework as a priori

codes.

Significance of Study

Researchers recommend that public participation be incorporated into planning

and implementation for stormwater systems (Marsalek & Chocat, 2002; Parkinson, 2003;

Rauch et al, 2005; Ryan & Brown, 2001). The U.S. EPA (2010) compiled several case

studies that examine green infrastructure implementation for stormwater management.

However, no study in the engineering literature examines the role of community

participation in green stormwater infrastructure development. As green stormwater

infrastructure progresses, it is important to understand the factors, both technical and non-

technical, that interact to promote or hinder its implementation. Community

participation

is a non-technical process that can complement or hinder technical processes of planning,

design and implementation (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Priscoli, 2004). Thus, a deeper

understanding of its reality for stormwater management can enhance and advance the

latter processes. The case study in this work presents a representative case, as cities

across the U.S. are increasingly incorporating public participation into green stormwater

infrastructure development. Insights uncovered from this research can be transferred to

subsequent cases.

Definitions of Terms

For the purpose of this study, community participation is defined as a

process

whereby the beneficiary – the community, influences decisions for project development

that help to enhance their quality of life (Arnstein, 1969; Paul, 1987; Sanoff, 2000). More

specifically, the community refers to those who reside in the neighborhoods described in

the study. Participation, in its most fundamental definition, according to the Merriam-

Webster dictionary, is the action of taking part in something. The words “participation”

and “engagement” are synonymous. This offers some explanation as to why the terms

community participation and community engagement are sometimes interchanged.

Though synonymous, their subtle differences must be recognized. Participation, the term

used for this research, differs from engagement in that engagement suggests a more

active role and active involvement in the participation process. A community member

can participate without actually being engaged. Engagement therefore is a higher level of

participation.

For the scope of this research, green stormwater infrastructure refers to

engineered stormwater management systems designed to mimic natural hydrological

processes (US EPA, 2014). These systems encourage infiltration, evapotranspiration,

reuse, and storage of stormwater at its source, to reduce flows into traditional stormwater

infrastructure systems.

Research Area

The focus area for this case study is the Proctor Creek Watershed, located in

metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, one of the fastest growing regions in the United States.

Atlanta is situated in the southeast United States, along the rapidly developing I-85

corridor. Figure 1.1 shows a topographic map of the watershed area, including its streams

and tributaries. There is approximately 34% impervious cover, representing a highly

urbanized watershed.

Figure 1.1: Topographic Map of Proctor Creek Watershed (Source: ProctorMap.org)

Chattahoochee

River
Proctor Creek

Watershed

boundary

Proctor Creek

This study’s interviewees and documents reveal that several areas within the

watershed’s neighborhoods are plagued with impaired water quality, flooding, combined

sewer overflows, and other environmental and public health problems. The recurring

flooding problem is attributed to increasing development downtown Atlanta and the

inadequacy of existing, aging infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff quantity and

quality. According to documents reviewed for this case, the recurring flooding issue

contributes to further problems such as an increased number of abandoned properties due

to mold and mildew, and concerns for public health from polluted flood water.

Even though the city of Atlanta worked towards separating combined sewer

systems under a consent decree, there are still problems of sewer spills in the area after

heavy rainfall events. Proctor Creek is a nine mile long channel that flows into the

Chattahoochee River (Figure 1.1). Hence, activities in Proctor Creek influence water

quality and other ecological conditions beyond its watershed boundaries.

There are continuous efforts to restore the creek’s ecology in collaboration with

the community. The Chattahoochee River Keeper, a nonprofit organization that works to

protect the Chattahoochee and its tributaries like Proctor Creek, keeps updated public

data on E.coli levels, turbidity, rainfall, and specific conductivity. In addition to this

water quality data, there is water quantity data available to the public easily accessible

through the Proctor Creek Stewardship Council’s website. The group uses the data to

hold the City of Atlanta Watershed Department accountable for any sewer spills into the

creek. They work alongside the community and community nonprofit organizations to

train citizen scientists who collect data at organized community events. Also, they share

the results with the public to inform community members and to give them the needed

data to advocate to their elected officials for necessary changes.

In October 2015, the City of Atlanta and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

partnered to conduct a three year, three million dollar feasibility study for

ecological

restoration in Proctor Creek. In a speech by Atlanta’s mayor Kasim Reed, he mentioned

that “this study will survey the water quality, overall environmental quality and flood-

damage risk reduction of the Proctor Creek watershed.” One of the first community

outreach events related to this study was a meeting conducted by the Mobile District of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through the Proctor Creek Stewardship Council.

Representatives informed community residents and other stakeholders about the study,

and then consulted with them for information on the challenges, problems and

opportunities in the area.

The community

The population within the 16 square mile watershed is approximately 52,000

spread out in 35 neighborhoods. In this study, particular focus is given to the English

Avenue, Vine City and Atlanta University Center neighborhoods (encircled in yellow on

Figure 1.1). These areas lie within the Proctor Creek – North Avenue watershed sub-

basin. Vine City and English Avenue are immediately downstream of Atlanta University

Center, and receive its runoff. These areas, and other neighborhoods in the watershed, are

targeted for green stormwater infrastructure projects.

Vine City has a population of 1,499 and English Avenue has a population of

2,707 residents. The neighborhoods have pre-dominantly African-American residents –

87.7% according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Atlanta University Center is an area consisting

of four Historically Black Universities including Spelman University, Morehouse

University, Morehouse School of Medicine and Clark Atlanta University.

Vine City and English Avenue, have several socioeconomic challenges especially

when compared to the City of Atlanta as a whole. These two neighborhoods lie within a

single Neighborhood Planning Unit L (NPU L), citizen advisory councils grouped by

neighborhoods. Data compiled by Neighborhood Nexus, a regional information system,

uses data from the American Community Survey, to group and display data on economic

and education data. The data that compares for NPU L and the City of Atlanta with

respect to employment rates, income levels and education levels is explained here to give

the case its socioeconomic context.

The percentage of individuals in poverty in NPU L is 46.4% compared to 24.2%

in the City of Atlanta aggregated neighborhoods. The income per capita in NPU L is

$11,989 compared to $35,058 in the city of Atlanta. Median household income is $21,

844 compared to $52,082 in the city of Atlanta. With respect to education, 21% of the

population in NPU L has no high school diploma compared to 12.6% in the City of

Atlanta. Also, the percentage with a bachelor’s degree is 24.8% compared to 46.4% in the

City of Atlanta.

Government-Institutional Settings

All levels of government – federal, state and local are actively and directly

involved in collaborations and participation processes concerning Proctor Creek

watershed. On the federal level, there is the Urban Waters Federal Partnership including

ten federal agencies, led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The partnership

also includes twenty eight non-governmental organization and association partners. The

goal of the partnership is to work alongside community-led efforts for Proctor Creek’s

restoration and revitalization. The partnership provides resources and funding for

capacity building and community participation processes in line with its goal. A fact

sheet about the partnership published by the US EPA (2014a) reports that it aims to:

 Break down federal program silos to promote more efficient and effective use

of federal resources through better coordination and targeting of federal

investments.

 Recognize and build on local efforts and leadership, by engaging and serving

community partners.

 Work with local officials and effective community-based organizations to

leverage area resources and stimulate local economies to create local jobs.

 Learn from early and visible victories to fuel long-term action.

The partnership led and continues to lead several projects, including a Green

Infrastructure Technical Assistance project where the City of Atlanta received fifty

thousand dollars “to help expand its use of green stormwater infrastructure into

stormwater management programs.” The current outcome is a conceptual design of a

green stormwater infrastructure project completed by the city.

Additionally, the City of Atlanta – Atlanta Watershed Department initiated an

ordinance in 2013 that requires new development and redevelopment projects to

implement green stormwater infrastructure on site. While green stormwater infrastructure

is increasing throughout Atlanta because of the ordinance, the ordinance has had much

less impact in the Proctor Creek area, due to lack of development there.

Environmental Justice

Organizations and agencies that participate in Proctor Creek projects are grounded

in the environmental justice theme. The Urban Waters Federal Partnership program

began its work with Proctor Creek after identifying it as an environmental justice

community. The EPA Region IV’s Office of Sustainability and Environmental Justice is

involved with Proctor Creek projects and worked directly on capacity building

efforts.

One of the community’s leading activist organizations, Community Improvement

Association, is a community environmental justice organization. West Atlanta Watershed

Alliance is a watershed partnership initially formed to address environmental injustices in

West Atlanta watersheds, including Proctor Creek watershed. One of Proctor Creek

Stewardship Council’s underlying values is environmental justice as the organization

aims to empower stewards. These groups spur activism among community residents to

work together to fight against the injustices that they experienced for decades.

Combined sewers directed the flow of sewage and stormwater from the upstream

downtown area into Proctor Creek waterways. While it is natural that water flows to

lower elevations, poorer communities downhill received the sewage and stormwater from

more affluent upstream communities. The problem intensified as development continued,

making the lower income communities bear a disproportional burden for wastewater and

stormwater that did not originate from the area. In the early 1990’s the city built

combined sewer facilities low-lying Proctor Creek neighborhoods to address sewage

overflows in the creek after heavy rainfall. Even though these facilities are designed and

operate to control sewer spills by temporarily storing excess stormwater then releasing

back into the waterways, it was not a wanted technology in the area.

Case study selection

Considering features of the case context previously described, the Proctor Creek

watershed case is particularly useful to study the research questions. The case

characteristics including urban growth, the ecological conditions, the flooding issue, the

socio-economic conditions, and government-institutional context contribute to its

suitability for study.

Firstly, as one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S., Atlanta’s

impervious cover is increasing. As such, there is a need for increased stormwater

infrastructure maintenance and implementation. Additionally, the ecological

conditions

call for a greater emphasis on infrastructure that helps to improve water quality within the

watershed boundaries and beyond it. The current push for green stormwater infrastructure

implementation in the City of Atlanta is supported by both government and non-

governmental organizations, which recognize community participation as an integral

component to the development process. Socio-economic conditions in the watershed,

which are tied to its issues of environmental injustice, support the priority for community

participation while shaping the features of participation process that occurs. The

intersection of green stormwater infrastructure development and prioritized community

participation is a prime opportunity to study the phenomenon as it occurs in reality.

Lastly, the proximity of the case study location allowed the researcher to conduct field

visits during the time of study.

Outline of Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the

background of the study, the research problem, the research objective and associated and

need for the research, along with the research objectives and questions. Also, the research

area is described in this chapter to give context to this research. Chapter 2 gives a review

of the literature in urban stormwater management and community participation, followed

by this work’s conceptual framework. The conceptual framework is developed to guide

the research for the single case study. Chapter 3 describes the case study methodology,

data analysis techniques and the study limitations. Chapter 4 presents the context findings

and discussion. Chapter 5 continues with descriptions of the process, output and

implementation findings and discussions. Chapter 6 concludes this work with the

research contributions, implications of the findings, and recommendations for future

research.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERTURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Introduction

This chapter begins with a review of traditional and green stormwater

infrastructure controls, and then continues its framing within the context of community

participation. The review shows the opportunity to investigate community participation

for green stormwater infrastructure development. The chapter advances with the

conceptual framework for this study that is shaped primarily by the existing literature in

public participation in environmental decision making and collaborative watershed

management.

Stormwater

Infrastructure

Traditional infrastructure for stormwater management focus on water capacity

and conveyance (Kloss, 2008). Despite the efficiency of these when designed well, the

adverse effects of urban stormwater can be intensified by traditional stormwater

infrastructure systems which often convey runoff directly to streams and rivers (Roy et

al., 2008). This physical infrastructure consists of centralized networks of pipes with the

main purpose to convey stormwater off site as quickly as possible. In some cities, these

pipe networks are thousands of miles long and usually are combined sewers or storm

sewers channels. Storage infrastructure holds the water and releases it slowly into

waterways, sometimes untreated. These engineered systems were usually the result of

decisions made by engineers themselves without collaboration from the public and other

indirect stakeholders, especially since they are highly technical, underground systems.

In contrast with more conventional infrastructure, green infrastructure is a general

term for decentralized stormwater management approaches that use low impact

development measures by incorporating elements of the hydrological cycle. These

elements include interception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, filtration and conveyance,

detention, retention and reuse (Kloss, 2008) to treat runoff quality and quantity at the

source. Low impact development is an engineering design approach that mimics the pre-

development hydrological function of the land (Dietz, 2007).

The meaning of green infrastructure varies with context (Benedict & McMahon,

2006) and scale. The term “green infrastructure” is an umbrella term that includes a range

of strategies that can be applied on different scales throughout a watershed for overall

management. Scales include the city scale or regional scale, and the neighborhood or

site

scale. At a city or regional scale, green infrastructure is a network of undeveloped natural

areas that provides environmental benefits such as flood protection, cleaner water,

cleaner air, and biodiversity maintenance (US EPA, 2014). Land conservation efforts

exemplify this idea–natural areas around urban areas can serve not only environmental

protection, but recreational use as well (US EPA, 2014). At the neighborhood or site

scale, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that allow

infiltration and storage of runoff at its source (US EPA, 2014). At this scale, the term

“green stormwater infrastructure” can be used, and is employed for the scope of this

research. Examples at this scale include rainwater harvesting where water is collected and

stored for use, raingardens, permeable pavements, green roofs and bioswales.

No matter the scale of use and implementation, for best performance of a

stormwater system in an urban watershed, there needs to be widespread

implementation

of green infrastructure (Montalto et al., 2012). Best management practices for stormwater

management encourage increased use of green stormwater infrastructure measures to

supplement traditional infrastructure. These best management practices are being adopted

in cities across the U.S. to combat the problem of combined sewer overflows.

Benefits of Using Green stormwater infrastructure

In 2009, the city of Philadelphia Watershed Department conducted a study to

understand the triple bottom line benefit of options between traditional and green

stormwater infrastructure to control CSO events. The study, and subsequent real-world

projects, illustrated that using green stormwater infrastructure approaches gave way to

social, environmental, and economic benefits that traditional infrastructure could not

provide (Stratus Consulting Inc., 2009). Some environmental benefits of green

stormwater infrastructure include flood protection, reduction in sewer overflow events,

and efficient land use. An example of a social benefit is enhanced livability through

attractive streetscapes. Lastly, some economic benefits include increases in land value,

reduction in the cost of traditional infrastructure, and encouragement of economic

development (U.S. EPA, 2010).

Twelve cases on green infrastructure compiled and analyzed by the U.S.

EPA

(2010) revealed some common policies used to advance implementation. These included

stormwater regulation, stormwater fees, demonstration and pilot projects, and review and

revise local codes. The motivation for these was not only stormwater management

innovation, but the benefits that green infrastructure provided. In addition, it adds value

through its provision of direct experience with natural ecosystems, physical recreation,

environmental education, and opportunities for social interaction (Ahern, 2007). For

example, the Baldwin Park Community in Orlando, Florida uses an underground

stormwater system that is integrated with restored wetlands. It has aesthetic and

recreational benefits in addition to enhanced water quality benefits (WERF, 2009).

Cities are increasingly including green stormwater infrastructure in their

stormwater management plans to capture and reuse stormwater as the benefits are

continually being recognized (U.S. EPA, 2008). Reusing stormwater is already explored

and implemented in other developed countries such as Australia, and now increasingly in

the U.S. to help lessen the demand on water supply systems. For instance, collected water

is reused for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Additionally, stormwater utilities

recognize that green stormwater infrastructure can be incorporated into stormwater

management plans to help address regulations, requirements and ordinances (Kloss,

2008), and at the same time reduce costs on stormwater infrastructure. Since green

stormwater infrastructure measures are often less costly than traditional controls,

combining both methods can reduce overall cost of the infrastructure system while

addressing problems such as flooding and combined sewer overflows (US EPA, 2014b).

Green Stormwater Infrastructure Implementation Challenges

Even though the body of knowledge on best management practices and the design

of green stormwater infrastructure increased significantly over the last decade, there are

several difficulties with its implementation. Some barriers include insufficient

engineering standards and guidelines, lack of institutional capacity, limitation of funding

and resistance to change (Keeley et al., 2013; Roy et al., 2008). For example, financial

issues can be addressed in part by the addition of fee acceptance or increase, but this may

be unfeasible in some cases (Keeley et al., 2013). Local municipalities lack data on the

technology’s performance and are more resistant to adopting the technology.

These problems are progressively addressed with current research and practice.

For instance, to address resistance to change, one solution Roy et al. (2008) gives is to

educate and engage the community. Several cities across the U.S., such as Philadelphia

and New York City, make engagement and education an integral part of watershed

planning efforts to advance green stormwater infrastructure.

Community Participation in Infrastructure Projects

As the community participation literature emerged in the latter half of the

twentieth century, development projects in both the developing and developed world

emphasized the community participation concept. While the Western-funded projects in

developing nations emphasized community participation in urban housing, health, and

population (Paul, 1987), so too did public projects in the West. U.S. federal agencies such

as the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the

Federal Highway Administration encouraged community participation and engagement

by incorporating it into project planning. Despite the emphasis, the amount of community

participation actually practiced effectively was very much debatable.

Community participation is increasingly recognized as a way to incorporate

sustainability into infrastructure projects (Flora, 2004). For example, the Envision rating

system ̶ a sustainability assessment framework for infrastructure ̶ evaluates project

leadership through rewarding collaboration and provision for stakeholder

involvement

among other factors. The community is one such stakeholder group. The concept of

community participation relates to social sustainability as it considers the interaction of

society and infrastructure for long term benefits.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation

The literature affirms the advantages of public participation (Creighton, 2005;

Duram & Brown, 1999; Forester, 2006; Reed, 2008). Benefits associated with public

participation include better informed decisions, increased acceptance of decisions, social

learning, and enhanced democracy (Mostert, 2003). Additionally, the process builds

social capital, generates increased levels of trust, increases ownership and generates

information and understanding (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003; Burby, 2003).

The public is a source of information that can contribute to quality decisions

through possibly influencing more “technically rigorous” decisions that satisfy a broader

range of interests (Beierle, 1999 p. 84). This can be attributed to participants contributing

local knowledge, which can “include information pertaining to local contexts or settings,

including knowledge of specific characteristics, circumstances, events, and relationships,

as well as important understandings of their meaning” (Corburn, 2003 p. 421). Brody,

Godschalk, & Burby (2003) believe meaningful involvement comes about through

inserting this local community knowledge early in the planning process.

On the other hand, problems such as inadequate and unrepresentative response,

inconsistent decision making, costs and time plague the participation process (Luyet,

Schlaepfer, Parlange, & Buttler, 2012; Mostert, 2003; Reed, 2008). Also, poor quality of

community input fails to reflect community needs accurately (Arnstein, 1969).

Concerning inadequate and unrepresentative response, Laurian (2004) identified that

sociodemographic factors, such as lower household incomes, decreased the

likelihood of

participation; whereas individual motivation, distrust in public agencies, integration in

local social networks, increased the likelihood of participation. In addition, citizens are

likely to participate in a collaborative process if they believe that the process can help to

enhance quality of life for the public (Samuelson et al., 2005).

Defining Community Participation

Though widely studied, the literature does not converge on a single definition of

participation. Several definitions exist (Creighton, 2005; IAP2, 2014; Innes & Booher,

2004) and each depends on the context it is used in and the decision making processes

(Luyet et al., 2012).

Arnstein (1969 p. 216) associates the term citizen participation with citizen

power. Participation involves deliberately including the “have-not citizens” in influencing

future outcomes that affect them, thereby allowing power that they would not usually

have. Within the context of infrastructure development in developing communities, (Paul,

1987 p. 2) defines community participation as “an active process by which the

beneficiary/client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project

with a view to enhancing their well-being in terms of income, personal growth, self-

reliance or other values they wish to cherish.” He describes the objectives of community

participation to include empowerment, capacity building, increased project effectiveness,

project cost sharing and improvement of project efficiency.

According to (Sanoff, 2000) community participation is “direct public

involvement in decision-making processes whereby people share in social decisions that

determine the quality and direction of their lives.” He also continues with the main

purposes of participation (p. 9):

 To involve people in design decision making processes and as a result,

increase their trust and confidence in organizations, making it more likely that

they will accept decisions and plans and work within the established systems

when seeking solutions to problems.

 To provide people with a voice in design and decision making in order to

improve plans, decisions, and service delivery.

 To promote a sense of community by bringing people together who share

common goals.

Innes & Booher (2004) introduce the term “collaborative participation” as a new

framing on public participation that goes beyond traditional participation methods. While

traditional participation still has its place, collaborative participation takes on a multiple

interactions among stakeholders rather than the traditional two-way interaction between

citizens and government (Innes & Booher, 2004). The authors state that participation has

several purposes, including leveraging local knowledge and impartiality; however, it is

mostly observed because it is required by law in some settings.

Levels of Participation and Mechanisms

There are several known mechanisms to facilitate community participation. These

include visioning, charrettes, community action planning, participatory action research,

workshops, and strategic planning (Sanoff, 2000). These methods can be chosen to adapt

to the community, the issue to be addressed, and the facilitator’s experience. A survey of

public managers’ perceptions about public participation found that cities commonly use

traditional forms of participation such as public hearings, citizen advisory boards, and

community or neighborhood meetings (Wang, 2001) which are significantly effective for

meeting various dimensions of participation. However, theoretical definitions of

participation are achieved through a limited number of participation methods in practice

(Beierle, 1999).

Different levels of participation are appropriate for different stages and types of

projects. Nonetheless, there is more impact for beneficiaries from participation the higher

the level of participation. The levels of participation as described by the International

Association for Public Participation (IAP2) are shown in the diagram below (Figure 2.1).

From left to right in Figure 2.1 there is increasing impacts of participation. Thus, there is

most impact when the public is empowered with decision making.

Figure 2.1: Increasing Impacts of Participation (adapted from the International

Association for Public Participation, Public Participation Spectrum (IAP2, 2014))

Informing the public is the base level of participation where the public is simply

given information about the proposed project (IAP2, 2014). Examples of mechanisms for

public participation at this level include the media, brochures, the internet, public

meetings and hearings (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Mostert, 2003). Consulting occurs

when there is an exchange of giving information to the public and receiving feedback to

be considered (IAP2, 2014). Examples of mechanisms include public meetings,

interviews and internet discussions (Mostert, 2003). The informed and consulted

participants are less powerless to change any course of action that may affect them.

Involving the public establishes a level of understanding of their concerns and

contributions. Collaboration involves the public in every aspect of the decision making

process. This approach builds consensus among stakeholders and the public for complex

problems (Margerum, 2011). Lastly, empowerment is giving the public the opportunity to

make the final decisions. Involving, collaborating with and empowering the public can be

done through small group meetings such as design charrettes and workshops (Mostert,

2003), and interacting with key persons (Samuelson et al., 2005).

Following the theoretical definition of participation, meaningful participation

truly occurs at higher levels of participation, especially since this is when benefits of

public participation can be recognized (Mostert, 2003). Base levels of participation are

sometimes considered to be non-genuine forms of participation (Arnstein, 1969).

According to the goals of the participation process, informing the public is the essential

foundation of participation but should only build from there, not end there.

Results of a survey by (Wang, 2001) found significant influence of participation

in decision making for consensus building and identifying and assessing public needs, but

still participation is very limited in decision making. This limitation shows the lack of

depth in the participatory process which may undercut some of the purposes and

advances it tries to achieve.

Green Stormwater Infrastructure and Community Participation

Public participation is particularly important in decision making for water and

environmental issues (Beierle, 1999; Priscoli, 2004) and can lead to more sustainable

water management (Mostert, 2003). Beierle (1999) recognizes that differing perspectives

between the public and experts can be complementary in decision making. Nonetheless,

for participation to be effective in water and environmental issues, other aspects of

decision making such as technical and scientific contexts must be in proper balance with

participation (Beierle, 1999).

Priscoli (2004) describes public participation in water management as an ethical

issue of informed consent; it occurs when solutions are not simply given by engineers,

but facilitated by them, with collaboration from the public. This interaction constitutes

meaningful participation; public participants experience the “burdens” of making choices

as opposed to simply being the recipient of decisions (Priscoli, 2004). Thus, meaningful

participation can only begin when participants understand their part in the process, the

goals to be accomplished, and how they can contribute.

Green stormwater infrastructure is a decentralized approach to stormwater

management within a watershed, whereas traditional stormwater infrastructure is

centralized. With the shift to complement centralized systems with more decentralized

systems, there is also a parallel with the disciplines involved with stormwater

management. It is no longer solely the engineer’s job to deal with these issues, but it is

now an interdisciplinary field involving technical experts such as ecologists, soil

scientists, planners, designers, hydrologists and engineers (Randolph, 2012), members of

the public, governmental and non-governmental groups. This necessitates collaboration

among these groups; and collaboration underpins principles of public participation

processes. Sabatier et al. (2005) recognizes that decision making for watershed

management is now collaborative, where problem solving is approached by diverse

stakeholders to build consensus and produce results (Margerum, 2011).

Public participation has been widely studied for water resources management and

collaborative watershed management (Benson et al, 2014; Koehler & Koontz, 2007;

Leach, Pelkey, & Sabatier, 2002; Samuelson et al., 2005; Webler & Tuler, 2001). Green

stormwater infrastructure lays at the intersection of these fields, yet participation in its

project development and implementation has not been investigated in the literature.

Countries like Germany and Australia are more advanced in urban stormwater

management than the U.S. and have considered the integrated approaches and public

involvement for storm drainage and runoff quality (Rauch et al., 2005; Ryan & Brown,

2001). Now, cities like Philadelphia and New York City continue to highlight the need

for community involvement for stormwater management. As such, this development

necessitates a deeper understanding of the interaction between participation and green

stormwater infrastructure development. The connection between participation and

infrastructure decisions should be more apparent as green stormwater infrastructure

becomes more prevalent in urban areas across the

U.S.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework continues with the review of the literature to guide its

development. This framework guided the field research and informed the data analysis.

Its development began from the onset of the study and continued to evolve as the

research progressed. It was developed through several iterations and is based on theories

found in literature that cover collaborative watershed management and public

participation. In addition, iterations among literature reviews, data collection and

preliminary data analysis informed this framework. It is used to understand, describe, and

examine the context, participation processes, outputs, and implementation for green

stormwater infrastructure, in the Proctor Creek Watershed in Atlanta, Georgia.

In this section, the conceptual framework is represented in both narrative and

illustrative forms to highlight and explain the main themes, attributes, and ideas (Miles,

Huberman, & Saldana, 2014) that occur in this study. Each element of the conceptual

framework is described to set the bounds of the case.

Process of developing the conceptual framework

Framework development began with causal loop diagrams to show the

interrelationships among themes and elements found in public participation and

engineering literature on stormwater runoff quantity and quality. However, further

development sought the need to extend the theoretical basis of participation.

The conceptual framework for this study draws on the framework proposed by

Sabatier et al. (2005) shown in Figure 2.2, and Beierle & Cayford’s (2002) conceptual

model of public participation. The data in this case study revealed similar attributes to

these pre-existing frameworks; thus, it was appropriate to use them after examining the

literature. During the study, it was found that community participation was bolstered

within the context of collaborative approaches. Recognizing this helped to frame and to

understand community participation as it was occurring in reality.

Aspects of Sabatier et al.’s (2005) framework were evaluated (Leach & Sabatier,

2005; Samuelson et al., 2005) and used to construct a public participation evaluation

framework (Benson et al., 2014). Subsequent works in collaborative approaches to

watershed management went beyond measuring process outcomes as Sabatier et al.’s

(2005) work did, to address implementation and environmental outcomes (Koontz &

Newig, 2014; Koontz & Thomas, 2006). Beierle & Cayford’s (2002) framework was

developed to examine public participation in a large number of heterogeneous case

studies. It included context, process, and results categories, along with their respective

attributes. The framework was detailed, yet remained sufficiently general to evaluate a

range of case studies.

Sabatier et al.’s (2005) framework explains the success of collaborative watershed

partnerships in terms of themes including context, process, civic community, policy

outputs and watershed outcomes, most of which are applicable to this study. This work

recognizes community participation as a key aspect of collaborative approaches. It goes

beyond the successful collaborative watershed management framework, and studies

participation as it happens beyond the collaborative watershed partnerships. While the

collaboration aspect is heavily incorporated in this study, it extends to include, for

example, information flows to the community about the issue, how the community is

involved and consulted, and how the community is empowered to make decisions

towards their well-being. This addresses the limitation that “it is not very general” by

virtue of its design and purpose (Sabatier et al., 2005 p. 173).

While this work adapts the focus, it applies most of the themes depicted in Figure

2.2. The context theme wholly applies to this case because it situates and begins to

delineate the boundaries of the case study. It is imperative to understand all the attributes

listed within this theme because it helps to further draw connections among other themes

later in the study. In addition, as a part of the context, the type of issue (Beierle &

Cayford, 2002) is included to fully describe the Proctor Creek case study. The

civic

community theme shown in the model below is relevant to this study; however, its

attributes are described within the civic community conditions for this study as opposed

to a stand-alone variable as shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: A Conceptual Framework for Collaborative Watershed Management.

(Sabatier et al. 2005)

To supplement Sabatier’s process theme, this work employs Beierle & Cayford’s

(2002) process theme that includes the type of mechanisms and the respective

characteristics, and other process features such as participants’ motivation and issues of

non-participation. The detail that Beierle & Cayford’s (2002) framework entails is more

relevant to the case of Proctor Creek watershed. It provides a basis to answer the

research questions more directly than the process theme of Sabatier’s framework. Both

Sabatier et al. (2005) and Beierle & Cayford (2002) describe the output theme as

recorded decisions in plans and documents, a measure which is used in

this study.

This work extends Beierle & Cayford (2002) conceptual framework, with the

addition of the implementation theme. This theme is considered for this work especially

since there is community participation in the implementation processes for this case.

Also, as a single case study, the implementation theme gives a fuller description of the

case in its entirety. This research aims to investigate and draw connections between

themes of context, community participation processes, and the outputs for

implementation of green stormwater infrastructure. While doing so, it acknowledges that

the literature warns against drawing causal connections between participation and

successful implementation (Beierle & Cayford, 2002) since there are multiple, complex

factors that play into the role of implementation, specifically infrastructure

implementation.

Framework Description

Theme 1:

Context

The literature makes it clear that context factors are necessary for understanding

processes and outputs (Brody, 2003; Luyet et al., 2012; Tang & Brody, 2009). This

framework includes elements of the context theme that both Sabatier et al. (2005) and

Beierle & Cayford (2002) describe. The context elements include the type of issue, the

socio-economic conditions, the ecological conditions, the civic community conditions,

and the institutional settings that surround the case. Context can include many more

elements than outlined here for this case (Beierle & Cayford, 2002); but, preliminary

emergent findings and their theoretical parallels were considered, and the most prominent

issues that are relevant for Proctor Creek are described.

The Type of Issue

The type of issue describes the case situation and its characteristics. It delineates

the case as an issue of watershed-scale natural resource management, as stormwater

management is increasingly considered as such (Roy et al., 2008). The overarching goal

in efforts concerning Proctor Creek watershed, this work’s research area focus, is

watershed restoration and remediation for water quality improvement. As the headwaters

for the Chattahoochee River, it is imperative that activities which impose negative

downstream impacts be addressed.

Defining even further, the issue for this case concerns addressing the lack of

efficient stormwater infrastructure that contributes to the reoccurring flooding problem.

Green stormwater infrastructure has similar processes for planning, design and

implementation as other types of civil infrastructure such as roads and buildings

(Benedict & McMahon, 2006) which tend to lend itself to decision processes led by

solely technical professionals. Understanding the type of issue and its relation to

participation and green stormwater infrastructure development can contribute to an

understanding of how non-technical benefactors can contribute to technical decision

making processes.

Ecological Conditions

Within urban watersheds, ecological conditions can give insight into

infrastructure planning and design (Grimm, Grove, Pickett, & Redman, 2000; Pickett et

al., 1997), especially for water infrastructure. The “urban stream syndrome” characterized

by features such as high nutrient concentrations and low biotic diversity (Grimm et al.,

2008), can be used to describe many urban streams including Proctor Creek, that have

been affected by increased pollutant loading, stemming from the effects of urbanization

and increasing impervious cover. Ecologically-based designs can be considered to

counter this urban stream syndrome. For instance, low-impact stormwater solutions and

water capture systems can be used for urban stormwater management (Grimm et al.,

2008). Conversely, storm water infrastructure may influence ecological structures and

processes. For example, storm drains and pipes can influence insect distribution on

household or neighborhood scales (Grimm et al., 2008). Thus, it is important to

understand decisions for the built environment within the limits of the natural systems

and as drivers for changes that occur within it.

Beyond the natural characteristics of ecological systems, is the human element of

the system, which introduces far more interrelated factors to consider (Pickett et al.,

1997). An ecosystem’s structure, function, and processes are influenced by human

activity such as land use and development, as well as social processes. The influence of

human activity on ecosystems convey the need to understand issues that arise such as

environmental justice (Grimm et al., 2000).

Socioeconomic Conditions

Socioeconomic conditions describe the general income levels, education status,

and occupations in the case community. One study by Laurian, (2004) found that

financial resources is an indicator of public participation in environmental decisions;

higher income earners participated much more than low-income earners. In addition, the

same study found that education level and employment status of respondents had no

significant effect on participation. Similarly, Tang & Brody (2009) found that context

factors such as wealth and education have an influence on plan quality, though not

statistically significant. The case study area’s socioeconomic conditions and its influence

on community participation is explored and compared with the theoretical findings.

Civic Community Conditions

The civic community conditions attribute is described by pre-existing

relationships (Beierle & Cayford, 2002) and human, social and political capitals (Flora,

2004). Civic community conditions identify issues of conflict, and levels of trust among

community participants towards other community participants, government agencies,

organizations and other stakeholders in the participation processes of the case (Sabatier et

al., 2005). For many years, numerous groups, organizations, and institutions have been

working in the Proctor Creek area for revitalization and restoration efforts, some more

consistent and long-standing than others. Considering these groups’ involvement, gives

reason to investigate the community’s response and relationship to all these stakeholders.

Margerum (2011) asserts that one reason that collaboration emerged is due to the

lack of trust in government that created conflict in planning efforts. This conflict is

usually a result of delayed community interaction for decisions and communication

barriers. An understanding of these issues can lead to participants having more prospects

for decision-making roles in collaborative processes (Margerum, 2011).

Government-Institutional Settings

This element of the context theme describes the levels of government involved in

Proctor Creek efforts and their roles, their levels of involvement and the identity of the

lead agency (Beierle & Cayford, 2002). Leach & Pelkey (2001) found that agency

involvement can be a contributing factor to successful watershed partnerships, especially

when agencies have sufficient resources for participants to be actively involved in

partnership processes.

Theme 2:

Process

Community Participation and

Collaboration

Collaboration is one of the higher levels of community participation concerned

with building consensus among stakeholders who are part of the participation process

(Margerum, 2011). Here, we look at how the process of community participation occurs

in reality, and consider how collaboration occurs between the community and other

stakeholders at various stages of the planning processes. The levels of participation,

mechanisms and characteristics are explored to understand the planning process that

influences decisions for implementation stormwater infrastructure in this case.

Type of Mechanism and Characteristics

The types of participation mechanisms were mentioned previously in the literature

review and are studied according to the following characteristics (Beierle & Cayford,

2002):

 Type of mechanism and levels of participation



Description of

participants



Type of output

 Goal of process

Motivation for participation and Issues of non-participation

Individual motivation is a key factor that determines community participation

(Laurian, 2004). Motivation looks at the factors such as participants’ interests in the

issues, if participants can be paid for their time (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004), and

commitment levels to the area (Laurian, 2004). For instance, many residents in Proctor

Creek watershed neighborhoods are renters, not home owners – which may affect

participation levels. In addition, the perception of influence on the output and outcomes

can be a motivating factor in participation processes (Beierle & Cayford, 2002).

Laurian (2004) revealed several reasons for non-participation in environmental

decision-making including trust in government agencies and passivity towards the issue.

The same study found that less common reasons for non-participation were “planning to

move from the area” and “lack of interest” (p. 62). It is important to understand non-

participation in order to increase efficiency of future participation efforts.

Education and Capacity

Building

This attribute explores how the community learns about the issues and how

available resources are used to build the community’s ability to address the issues

through participation. It is difficult to attain meaningful participation (Margerum, 2011);

educating and capacity building contribute to more meaningful participation by ensuring

residents are equipped to make, contribute to, and support better

decisions.

Education on stormwater management and infrastructure can help reduce

community resistance to sustainable stormwater systems like green stormwater

infrastructure (Montalto et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2008) especially in urban areas. For

example, demonstration projects can help increase the community’s understanding of

green stormwater infrastructure, thus increasing support for implementation throughout a

watershed. The education the community receives should go beyond understanding the

scientific underpinnings of an issue to establishing an understanding of alternatives for

various solutions and the associated outcomes (Beierle, 1999). Education should not only

be directed towards the community; but it should also include members of the community

educating their government representatives about the issues that affect the community to

allow for informed input about potential solutions. Education in this sense should equip

community members to apply pressure to those who have authority to effect and enforce

necessary changes.

Capacity is considered in terms of ability (Beierle & Cayford, 2002), collective

resources, and human and social capital to solve problems within the community

(Chaskin, 2001). Capacity building is a process that includes strategies such as

“leadership development, organizational development, community organizing, and

fostering collaborative relations among organizations” (Chaskin, 2001 p. 299).

Theme 3: Output

Plans, documents, and reports

Outputs are decisions from the participation processes reflected in documents,

reports, project plans, and the projects themselves (Koontz & Thomas, 2006). Beierle &

Cayford (2002) propose that the quality of the output can be evaluated by whether public

values are incorporated into decisions and if the quality of decisions improves as a result

of participation efforts. For instance, decision quality can be improved by incorporating

local knowledge of the problem and ideas for alternative solutions from the community.

These social evaluation goals help to determine the effectiveness of participatory

mechanisms by goals such as identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and also help to

determine ways to improve mechanisms (Beierle, 1999). The outputs of this work focuses

on those decisions directly related to stormwater infrastructure planning, design and

construction.

Theme 4: Implementation

Implementation is defined in five stages, as described by Table 2.1. While the

study describes the successful completion of a project for this case, it is cautious to

consider the insights to success as it relates to participation (Beierle & Cayford, 2002).

Table 2.1: Stages of Implementation (Beierle & Cayford, 2002)

Stage Process

1 Output of the public participation process

2 Design or commitment on the part of the lead agency

3 Changes in law, regulation, or policy

4 Actions taken on the ground

5 Changes in environmental quality

This work considers the stages of implementation, the likelihood of

implementation, and describes some the factors presupposing implementation other than

participation (Beierle & Cayford, 2002). Though decision-making processes are intended

to include participation processes, more factors ought to be considered. For example,

external partnerships may accelerate and stimulate actions that improve water quality

through green stormwater infrastructure. Without partnerships, progress may be much

slower and under-resourced. Also, within the planning process many complexities hinder

implementation (Loh, 2012). Loh (2012) suggests that these complexities in the planning

process are likely to occur at four points ̶ including visioning, plan writing, local

government actions, and ordinance enforcement. This research describes the factors that

emerge from the data as it aligns or misaligns with existing theory.

Outcomes reveal the effects of implementation but are much more difficult to

measure than outputs, decisions from participation processes (Koontz & Thomas, 2006).

Perceived and projected outcomes include stormwater control objectives as it relates to

the performance of the implemented infrastructure. The scope of this work does not

include data for performance of implemented systems. However, it is necessary to state

that performance goals are determined by whether stormwater control objectives are met

or not. These objectives are as follows (Design of Urban Stormwater Controls, 2012 p.

37-38):

1. Minimization of runoff

2. Implementation of source controls at point where precipitation reaches the ground

3. Resource protection

4. Protection of public safety, health, and welfare

5. Protection of infrastructure and public property

6. Technical feasibility and costs, practicality, public acceptance

To summarize the conceptual framework used for this study, Figure 2.3 shows the

theoretical constructs that guide this work.

Figure 2.3: The interacting themes and attributes represent the case study for

community participation for green stormwater infrastructure

Research Objective

Considering the framework, the objectives of this research are to:

1. Investigate how community participation influences decisions for green

stormwater infrastructure.

2. Understand the case context, participation processes, outputs, and implementation

for green stormwater infrastructure development.

To fulfill these objectives, the following research questions guide the study. The

questions are as follows:

1. How do community participation mechanisms facilitate decisions for green
stormwater infrastructure?
2. How do context features and community participation processes influence
implementation of green stormwater infrastructure solutions?

These questions were revised during the data collection and data analysis as the

case study progressed. Originally, the research questions focused on the participation

process only – the mechanisms that facilitated community participation in stormwater

infrastructure design decisions, not factoring in the influence of context, implementation,

and possible outcomes. During data collection, it was determined that this was a limited

scope due to the lack of events focused on stormwater infrastructure and green

stormwater infrastructure alone for the selected case study. The researcher attended

several events and observed that most of the events were generally about a collection of

issues in Proctor Creek, not just stormwater management. Also, the design process for

new green stormwater infrastructure projects is set to occur beyond the time span of this

study, later than originally planned by the relevant authorities. Hence, the influence of

community participation on decisions could not be directly studied for the engineering

design process. Though implemented projects are limited, the detail of the implemented

project is worth including and analyzing to understand the perspective of the entire

situation for green stormwater infrastructure in Proctor Creek. Considering that this study

pursued a single case, the focus expanded beyond the participation process to understand

how context plays a role in participation processes and how infrastructure

implementation processes are influenced and carried out.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, I presented the literature review followed by the conceptual

framework in narrative and illustrative forms. This framework was based on several

iterations of literature reviews, preliminary analysis of interview transcripts and

documents pertinent to this study. I described theoretical constructs that make up the

framework including themes from collaborative watershed management and public

participation in environmental decision making. The study’s conceptual framework

included the context, process, output, and implementation themes.

CHAPTER THREE

CASE STUDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction and Overview

This research uses the qualitative case study methodology to examine a single

case. This case study centers on green stormwater infrastructure development in Proctor

Creek Watershed, Atlanta Georgia and examines the context, process, outputs, and

implementation. The context itself, as previously described in the conceptual framework,

delineates the case and highlights the boundaries that are adhered to for the study.

The purpose of this case study is to convey a comprehensive understanding of

community participation in decisions for green stormwater infrastructure to answer the

research questions. The overarching query guiding this research is the role of community

participation in green stormwater infrastructure planning and implementation. This study

draws on data collected through interviews, documents, and field notes from (Creswell,

2013; Yin, 2009) to answer the research questions.

In this chapter, I start with a description of the case study methodology. I continue

with descriptions of data collection methods, the data analysis approach, and the

limitations and challenges of conducting this case study research. I describe the project

area and case selection, the interview participant selection, and gaining access to the

research area and the participants. In addition, I explain the ethical considerations,

validity and reliability relevant to this study.

Considerations for choosing the case study method

After conducting a review of community participation and stormwater

management, the preliminary research questions were derived. The Proctor Creek case

study was identified through meetings and conversations with employees primarily from

the United States Environmental Protection Agency who introduced Proctor Creek as one

of the watersheds within the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP) program. This

program focuses on providing resources for revitalization and restoration of urban

waterways. At the time this study was considered, the Proctor Creek watershed was one

of the most recent watersheds to be a part of the program. The study was determined to

be relevant, due to the preeminence of the issue and the expanding green stormwater

infrastructure applications to help solve some of the stormwater management problems

plaguing some neighborhoods in the watershed.

Only one case study was conducted in order to allow time for a full and detailed

review from context to implementation within the boundaries of the case. The case study

method provides the advantage of examining component parts, process, and

interrelationships. For this research, conducting multiple case studies was considered to

be unfeasible primarily due to limits to adequate data sources, time constraints and

proximity of case study sites. Preliminary data collection through gathering and screening

existing public documents about Proctor Creek confirmed the suitability of the case. In

addition, this case reflects similar situations in urban areas in the U.S. As the literature

review described, many urban areas are adopting green stormwater infrastructure

strategies to help manage stormwater. Lessons learned from this case can inform the use

of community participation for green stormwater infrastructure in urban areas across the

U.S.

Choice of Methodology

The questions guiding this research seek explanations of how context and

community participation impact decisions and implementation. The goal is to understand

the issue, explore what the circumstances of the study are as they happen, and draw

connections to learn from the study. The type of questions and the goal of the research

favored the case study methodology to appropriately answer the research questions.

Specifically, community participation is a social complexity that requires in-depth

description within the bounds of this case. Also, the events that occur within the bounds

of the case cannot be controlled or manipulated, and these events happen in real time.

Hence the suitability of the case study method as opposed to more experimental

approaches (Yin, 2009).

Qualitative research seeks to understand the subject in depth by leveraging human

perception and interpretation of their experiences (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 2010). For this

study, the research studies social processes in its context and seeks to convey the

experiences of a case in its complexity. In this research, a qualitative case study is

conducted to provide a detailed understanding of community participation in green

stormwater infrastructure efforts, an issue that is too complex to solely be measured

quantitatively. The qualitative case study approach gives the richness to the story of this

case. Stake (2010 p. 15) characterizes qualitative work by:

 interpretation – there may be different views for the same phenomenon;

 experiences – data collection is field oriented and not pre-arranged;

 situation – a detailed description of the context gives a holistic construct; and

 personal – for instance, it seeks individuals view points, and the researcher is

the main research instrument.

This work takes on these characteristics, and for these reasons and the aforementioned, a

qualitative stance was taken.

Overview of Case Study Methodology

The case study approach is commonly applied in medicine, law, economics, urban

planning, and social sciences (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2009). Case studies can either be

entirely qualitative or quantitative, or both – as mixed methods (Yin, 2009). Regardless of

where they fall on the spectrum of qualitative and quantitative research, case studies are

used to detail descriptive, exploratory and explanatory research questions (Yin, 2009).

This research approach enables the researcher to build comprehensive understanding of a

system bounded by place and time by using multiple data sources (Creswell, 2013; Yin,

2009). A case study is defined by Yin (2009 p. 18) as follows.

“A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context. It copes with the technically

distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than

data points, and as one result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data

needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefits from

the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and

analysis.”

Cases can be people, groups, organizations, or processes (Creswell, 2013) and can

be studied as single or multiple case studies. Unlike the multiple-case study approach that

usually involves case comparisons, single case studies are often, by design, “less

constrained” (Miles et al., 2014 p. 39) and require fewer front-end conjectures and

preparations before the study is conducted. As insights are uncovered during the study,

the approach can therefore be reasonably adapted to suit. Since multiple case studies are

used for more comparative analysis to highlight different viewpoints on a central issue

(Creswell, 2013), they require more upfront protocol structure to study effectively even

though adaptation can take place during the study. Whether the single or multiple case

study approach is used, they can be applied to multiple research scenarios that range from

evaluating and describing interventions in reality, to explaining occurrences for

interventions without focused outcomes (Yin, 2009).

There are several challenges associated with case studies, especially single case

studies. One concern is that the single case study cannot be used to make generalizations.

However, the purpose of a single case study, as with this work, is to provide “analytical

generalization” that develops and generalizes existing theories (Yin, 2009 p. 15) for the

issue studied. Another challenge is that this approach can be very resource intensive in

terms of time (Yin, 2009) and sometimes money. To address this issue, the bounds of the

study can be appropriated to increase efficiency, and the data collection methods can be

adjusted to suit the specific case(s).

Data Collection Methods

This case study investigates existing and proposed green stormwater

infrastructure projects in the Proctor Creek Watershed. Interviews and relevant

documents are used as the main data sources to fulfil the objectives of this research.

Firstly, the search for context and information began broadly. Gathering

information about the case began with internet searches for documents pertaining to

Proctor Creek, and speaking with individuals familiar with and involved in Proctor Creek

situations and projects. The researcher contacted four individuals involved with Proctor

Creek affairs in different capacities. One of the first individuals was found through a

networking opportunity and the other individuals were found by the snowballing effect,

which involves asking participants if they would recommend other potential participants.

The objective of these initial conversations was to continue assessing the

suitability of the case and to gather information about the context of the case. Also, the

researcher attended two Urban Waters Federal Partnership meetings where there were

representatives from federal and state agencies including the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Authority, U.S. Forest Service, and the

Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Access to these meetings was granted by an

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employee. Notes were taken at these two initial

meetings and reviewed to assess the suitability of the case study.

Once the context was established, the researcher continued to collect field notes,

conducted interviews, and reviewed documents to collect case study data.

Field notes: The researcher attended seven Proctor Creek Stewardship Council

meetings between July 2015 and March 2016 to continue understanding the context of

community and engagement for the case, to identify research participants, and to take

field notes. The meetings took place on the first Friday of every month. Also, the

researcher attended various community events and meetings that were open to the public,

all relevant to Proctor Creek projects between. In addition, the researcher attended the

three green infrastructure community forums that were held in March 2015, November

2015, and April 2016. The researcher took field notes as a participant observer at events

and meetings. These field notes were used to enhance case study descriptions. Also, they

were used to corroborate interview findings.

Semi-structured Interviews were conducted with participants from different

groups of stakeholders on Proctor Creek projects. These participants included persons

from the city, federal government agencies, community residents, and community non-

governmental organizations. There were 14 interview participants. Potential participants

were first identified from names in documents as those who were heavily involved with

Proctor Creek clean up and development efforts. Table 3.1 shows the range of

stakeholders who were interviewed.

Table 3.1: Interviewees represent a range of stakeholders

Role

Number of

Participants

Community resident and leader 3

Community coordinator 1

Employees of national and community non-
profit organizations

Students from area universities 2

City of Atlanta, Department of Watershed
Management employee

EPA employee 3

The researcher informally spoke with potential participants at various times

during events and meetings. These conversations allowed the researcher to understand the

suitability of participants to be interviewed and to establish rapport with potential

interviewees before asking them to be participants. These interviews sought factual

information, perspectives and opinions (Saldana, 2011; Stake, 2010) from interviewees

about the context and community participation processes in moving forward with green

stormwater infrastructure implementation in the Proctor Creek watershed neighborhoods.

The interviews followed the focused structure (Yin, 2009) with an average time

frame of thirty five minutes. The average interview time was forty minutes. Semi-

structured interviews were preferred over structured interviews due to the variety of the

informants’ backgrounds. Their range of experiences influenced additional questions for

insight. This approach was preferred over the unstructured interviews because there was a

specific objective to meet. New knowledge was gained through the perspectives of the

participants in the study. Follow-up information was requested where necessary during

the interview to ensure that the descriptive story is accurately developed. The interviews

took place at locations convenient to the interviewees, and over the phone. There were

seven phone interviews and seven site interviews. These sites included interviewees’

offices and community event locations. Each interview was audio-recorded with the

participants’ permission.

Before each interview began, the researcher shared the purpose of the research,

and gave a brief overview of how the interview would proceed. Each participant was

given information about being in the study by describing the risks and discomforts, the

possible benefits, and their protection of privacy and confidentiality. Participants were

given the option of keeping their identities confidential or disclosing their identities for

research reports and writings subject to publication. For phone interviews, the researcher

emailed the participants the consent forms before the interview or read it aloud if email

was not accessible. They were asked for verbal consent, or if they were able to scan and

re-send their written consent, they did so. Participants were asked if they had any

questions before the interview started and were informed that they were free to ask any

questions for clarification. During the interviews, the researcher took handwritten notes

to note key points from responses and ask follow up questions for clarification.

Participants were asked open ended questions and were asked to elaborate and clarify

responses where the researcher thought appropriate.

The first set of interview questions asked for the interviewees’ background in

relation to their connection with Proctor Creek projects and the work that they do, to give

context to each interview. The following set of questions asked for their perspectives and

experiences in line with attributes that were studied. As the conceptual framework

continued to be revised, interview questions were adapted accordingly. The protocol

served as a guide, and so all questions listed on the protocol were not asked to every

participant. Additional questions were asked based on the interviewee’s background and

the flow of conversation. See Appendix B for the interview protocol. The researcher

transcribed the first ten interviews. A professional transcriptionist transcribed the

subsequent interviews, in addition to one interview already transcribed by the researcher.

Document Review bolstered findings from interviews with data for each of the

variables being studied. Documents provided rich data especially for context and process.

Additionally, they contributed to the output theme of the conceptual framework because

they hold record of decisions and plans for stormwater infrastructure. For example, one

key document coded and analyzed for this case study is the “Proctor Creek North Avenue

Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision” produced by Park Pride, described

further in Chapter 4. The document gives the technical information about the study area

and shows the process of community input in conceptual planning and design for

potential green stormwater infrastructure sites. Another such report is the “Boone

Boulevard Green Infrastructure Conceptual Design” which itself is an output of

collaborative decisions from stakeholders on the project. The City of Atlanta’s “Green

stormwater infrastructure Strategic Action Plan” and “Upper Proctor Creek Watershed

Action Plan: A Waterway on the Rebound” were reviewed as well. A list of documents

reviewed is provided in Appendix C.

Data Analysis and Synthesis

Interview transcripts, documents and some field notes were analyzed by coding,

one way to analyze qualitative data (Saldana, 2009) to interpret and explain its meanings

(Miles et al., 2014; Stake, 2010). First cycle coding was done by provisional coding, a

method that uses “a predetermined start list set of codes” (Saldana, 2009 p. 144), and

descriptive coding. Provisional codes were informed by the attributes outlined in the

conceptual framework. The theoretical constructs defined in the conceptual framework

provided the themes for this work. A codebook was developed that defined each code and

highlighted when to use the code (See Appendix D). This codebook was revised during

data collection, conceptual framework development, and the descriptive coding cycle.

Content analysis of the data was further done by descriptive coding, which lead to a

summary of the data content (Saldana, 2009). Not every section of the data sources was

coded, but only the sections relevant to the research questions (Miles et al., 2014).

Further analysis of these provisional and descriptive codes was done by thematic

analysis, which provided extended phrases to summarize the data. Additionally, second

cycle elaborative coding (Saldana, 2009) sought the links and interrelationships across

themes in the data that supported or refuted previous theories from previous studies.

The NVivo program, a computer assisted qualitative data analysis software, was

used to code and categorize text from interview transcripts, documents and field notes to

quicken the research process and provide more time for analysis (Yin, 2009).

Validity and Reliability

This section gives insight to the researcher’s actions to preserve authenticity and

accuracy for the process of describing and analyzing the case situation in the study

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). Reliability and validity checks are throughout all stages of

the research process, and are highlighted in the data collection and analysis stages. For

this research, the researcher is the main research instrument, which may subject the

research to human errors and issues in interpretation (Stake, 2010). Thus, several checks

were established to help ensure the unbiased quality of this interpretive research.

A strong case study can be conducted without being in the field, simply through

phone interviews and document review (Yin, 2009). However, the researcher attended

and participated in several events for Proctor Creek watershed, even those unrelated to

stormwater infrastructure. This allowed the researcher to understand the case context

much more fully through experience and interaction with the place and the persons

involved. Also, this helped to dispel initial researcher biases.

Multiple sources of data were used in this study to substantiate findings where

possible. For instance, for green infrastructure community forums, the researcher took

notes at the event, reviewed online published articles about the forum, and gained

additional insight from interviews. Another example is the following. One document –

The Proctor Creek North Avenue Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision (PNA

Study) was used to understand participation processes that occurred a few years ago.

Interviews corroborated findings from the document. Additionally, reviewing available

documents allowed the researcher to streamline questions to each interviewee.

Several validity and reliability checks were done in the interviewing, transcribing

and analysis phases. During the interviews, there were “member checks” (Saldana, 2009)

to ensure that the researcher understood what the participant said correctly. For example,

after some responses during the interview, the researcher summarized what the

interviewee said, then asked if what was said is correct. During the analysis stage, the

logic of interpretations were evaluated and continually checked against the themes found

in the literature. For transcription reliability, both the researcher and a professional

transcriber transcribed one interview to compare transcriptions and ensure transcription

accuracy. In addition, coder reliability was checked by the level of agreement between

the researcher and a peer for statement excerpts from two interview transcripts.

Limitations of Research

The primary limitation of this research comes from it being a single case study.

As such, the results are not generalizable to green stormwater infrastructure planning and

implementation in all urban areas. A meta-analysis of similar case studies would need to

be done in order to generalize findings on this topic. The scope of this research did not

accommodate such an approach. Though the research is not generalizable, the insights are

transferrable, and it does “expand and generalize” (Yin, 2009, p. 15) the theories used in

this study.

Most events that the researcher attended were not solely on the topics of

stormwater management and green stormwater infrastructure. It was expected that there

would be more ongoing participation mechanisms focused on facilitating community

participation for green stormwater infrastructure design decisions. However, the

researcher used this as a tool to understand the context and to ask more focused questions

about participation for green stormwater infrastructure during interviews.

Another limitation was the restricted sample size of interview participants due to

availability and willingness of potential participants. Interviewee insights and experiences

do not represent the views of all those involved in community participation processes.

More participants would increase the credibility of the study. To address this limitation,

findings from documents and field notes helped to support some interview content.

Future work can include more participants, especially more interviewees who are

community residents.

As interviewing progressed, when participants were asked if there was anyone

else they would recommend for an interview, they gave the names of people already

interviewed, or planned to be interviewed. This represented saturation. However it must

be noted that interviewees included only those who are actively involved in Proctor

Creek community affairs. Those who are not involved were not included in the interview

sample. Hence, content of these interviews are not representative of the entire study area

community.

Though interviewees’ perspectives give the advantage of lived experience, their

responses are based on memory at the point in time of the interview. To address this

limitation, at the end of each interview, participants were asked if there was anything else

they would like to add to their responses.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, I described the case study methodology, and the overall research

approach for this study. I detailed how the case study method was used, in data collection

and in data analysis. I presented and addressed issues of trustworthiness for this of

conducting a qualitative case study, and particularly for this research. To conclude this

chapter, I included the methodological limitations of this research.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONTEXT

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

The data presented here describes additional information on the context in terms

of the type of issue and civic community conditions. Context factors play a role in

designing participation processes to improve the quality of desired outputs, contributes to

understanding implementation (Koontz & Newig, 2014; Margerum, 2011; Tang &

Brody, 2009). The findings presented in this section shape the understanding of

participation processes, outputs and implementation by providing insight for the most

salient context factors affecting each theme.

Context Description

One discernable finding in the case context was that civic community

characteristics such as social, human and political capital, as well as levels of trust, were

bolstered by collaborative partnerships in the community. Community non-profit

organizations were instrumental in leveraging resources for community development

towards stormwater and other watershed issues. One interviewee from a community non-

profit organization explained,

“So one action of the participatory action that’s occurring is a partnership or a

layer of engagement is of the NGOs, the non-profit organizations that are in the

watershed. So people like WAWA [West Atlanta Watershed Alliance] and the

Chattahoochee River Keeper and the Community Improvement Association and

maybe to some extent National Wildlife Federation and Conservation Fund. So

there’s some national and there’s some local NGO’s. We are all attempting to

partner and collaborate and even work to facilitate the pass through of funds and

even resources, so that we support the residents.”

One organization that operated through the collaboration of multiple community

non-profit organizations and residents is the Proctor Creek Stewardship Council. The

group’s characteristics model those of watershed partnerships found in the literature

(Genskow & Born, 2006; Koehler & Koontz, 2007; Leach et al, 2002). For instance, the

Proctor Creek Stewardship Council addresses a comprehensive range of watershed issues

while educating the community on these. Social capital in the community is building

through their work and the work of other groups. The group focuses on collaborative

efforts among the community, various agencies and community non-profit organizations.

Genskow & Born (2006 p. 62) state that “partnerships that form around watersheds are

fluid and often ephemeral, which has implications for how agencies, funding

organizations, and local partners engage, evaluate, and provide resources for the efforts.”

This organization, in collaboration with others, provides a medium and a filter especially

for local and federal government agencies to work through and communicate with the

community. In addition, these groups address other context features such as socio-

economic conditions and ecological conditions through their work by including residents

in citizen scientist activities and participatory research.

Type of Issue

The question “Can you describe stormwater issues in the watershed’s

neighborhoods?” elicited responses from interviewees. Though there are many other

issues in the watershed, the focus here is the flooding occurrences. Content analysis of

documents also provided added descriptive data for the type of issue.

At several meetings, residents voiced their frustrations with flooding in their

homes and the subsequent effects on their lives. At a meeting during a week of heavy

rainfall, one resident voiced his concern, “Every time it rains, it gets real scary because

you don’t know how high the water will rise.” When asked to describe the adverse effects

of heavy rainfall events in the area, a young community resident described the following:

“Well I’ve seen houses along that Creek have high percentage of mold in it,

mildew, and asbestos. And it’s an environmental impact as well, because a lot of

people who live in those homes are sick. They’re usually coughing when they’re

talking. And not only that, sometimes when we have heavy storms, the water rises

so high that I’ve seen it wash away a retaining wall before.

I’ve seen water when it does not have anywhere to drain to it just builds up in

neighbors’ yards. So it’s actually quite dangerous in my community due to

stormwater and because of where my neighborhood is located, we’re actually at

the bottom of the slope right before you get to the creek, so all the water that’s

travelling towards the creek doesn’t actually go toward the creek. Sometimes the

water just stops somewhere and it just sits and that creates an environmental

issue.”

The problems for Proctor creek begin in downtown Atlanta ̶ the location of the

headwaters. One interview participant from a national non-profit organization described

that “it’s about 265 acres of impervious concrete sits on top of the headwaters for this

creek.” The growing population and the continuous development in the central business

district, downtown Atlanta, contribute to even more impervious surface and thus more

runoff. Stakeholders and authorities recognize that stormwater management challenges

must be resolved in the headwaters to mitigate flooding effects in Proctor Creek

watershed neighborhoods. One lifelong community resident described his experiences

with flooding:

“Well, we noticed that our mobility is limited after a hard rain, and that you’ll

have a few flooded places. We never related that to other developments adding

more water to our stream, you might say. We just knew that after a rain we’d have

to wait a little longer before streets would dry out, or dry up.

We know now it was because of development of downtown Atlanta. We just

didn’t relate it to that. We just know there were certain places that, if you were

driving, you suddenly could flood out. The water would splash up on your tires.

Then there were places where the water would come all the way up to your engine

and drown you out.”

A member of a community non-profit organization similarly explained:

“And so Proctor Creek is receiving a lot of the downtown, central business district

stormwater. It is also one of the corridors that has become the most industrialized,

and it’s also one of the corridors that just so happens to have a lot of the urban

renewal redlining effects. So the property values drops, disinvestments happened.

Proctor Creek just so happened, like in many cities, became the poster child for

urban blight. You know in some places in a city, it’s just a perfect storm for

urbanization to have created perhaps unintended consequences of urban blight.”

Civic Community Conditions

Social capital is bolstered by surrounding universities

Many ongoing collaborations draw on the intellectual and resource capitals of the

area’s universities and feed into the social capital of the community. The Atlanta

University Center (AUC), situated in the upper part of the watershed, houses four

universities, includes Spelman College, Morehouse College, Morehouse School of

Medicine and Clark Atlanta University. Georgia Institute of Technology sits on the

border of the watershed boundaries and close to the English Avenue community.

Additionally, Georgia State University and Emory University are close to the watershed

boundaries. Each of these universities has or has had ongoing collaborations with the

community for necessary progress.

For example, a graduate student from Georgia State University led a project that

involved participatory research. Residents were involved with data collection and learned

skills as citizen researchers. The group created an interactive application that allowed

users to map the site of problems in the area. An interview participant who worked on the

project-also a Georgia State graduate student at the time of interview, explained that:

“…when you’re out in the community, you would be able to plot if you saw a

stormwater drain that was collapsed or tires, things like that. You can pull out

your Android phone or your Apple phone…and you can mark-up that point where

that location is.”

The participant also added the community benefits as participants.

“The whole point of that was to provide a tool that the community can be able to

be champions for their own space.”

Another example is the relationship between the Atlanta University Center and

the community for the Green stormwater infrastructure Initiatives described in detail

further in this chapter. The initiative aimed to foster collaborations among community

residents and the faculty and staff to promote the implementation of green stormwater

infrastructure on the institutions’ properties.

In the community-university partnerships, the university members leveraged the

residents’ local knowledge and lived experiences to inform the respective works.

Human capital needs to be increased

Despite the intellectual and resource capitals closely available, disconnects still

exist in the community’s skills and capacity needed for problem solving. Though some

the residents who actively participate in meetings and participation events are college

educated, many of the residents lack the skills and education needed to directly be a part

of fixing the problems in the area especially those that contribute to green stormwater

infrastructure development. There is the need for capacity building and education among

residents since the residents are the ones most invested by matter of daily life experiences

and well-being. One participant, a community resident remarked:

“We’re often told that there’s a mismatch between the jobs that are available in the

community and the people that are available in the community. Some lack skill,

some lack will.”

Levels of trust within the community and towards external groups affect working

partnerships

Numerous organizations work within Proctor Creek. The success of the work is

largely based on levels of trust from the community towards these organizations and

levels of trust among these organizations. Leach & Sabatier (2005) identify trust among

various groups and stakeholders as an important indicator of collaborative success. One

question, “Have you seen the community and all these different stakeholders working

together to address the problems and challenges with stormwater?” elicited the response

from a community resident:

“Yes. I see them working together. That needs to be communicated that they’re

working on their common goals together. There are those who don’t know why

and how others have taken interest in the location if they’re not from there, but

that case can very well be presented that the water is your neighborhood before

it’s in ours.”

The community has close knit social groups but is cautious of outsiders who come in to

“help” the community; however, once a common goal is expressed caution is dispelled.

“Yeah, there has been some concern, but there are organizations that formerly

were not related or connected, being shown that there is a relationship between

the neighborhoods that’s right before, along the Proctor Creek line, and right after

us, along the Proctor Creek line, so we have a common objective as to being able

to manage water that comes through our neighborhoods, where possible.”

While groups are working together, another interviewee, a community coordinator,

thought it was important to consider how conflict occurs.

“[There are] definitely sources of conflict. There’s a lot of suspicion in the north

side of Atlanta. There’s a whole background history that has led up to that and

caused that. I think communication is really hard. While there might be two

organizations working in the same space that have similar goals, if they’re not

communicating clearly in a way that each understands, then I think there can be

misunderstandings, grudges can build up and what have you. I think that’s really

common, even within a single organization. There are so many filters within the

course of our communication where I say something to you with a certain thing in

my mind of what it means, then you hear it and you’re filtering it through based

on your interpretation of that. There are a lot of subtleties that get lost, even in just

face-to-face communication.”

Over the years, many organizations worked within Proctor Creek to help the community.

Over-planning and lack of visible progress is causing lack of trust towards organizations

and government institutions. The community coordinator continued:

“If you were to talk about the English Avenue and Vine City neighborhood,

Washington Park, a lot of folks have expressed feeling like they’ve been planned

to death. Some organization will see this neighborhood in West Atlanta and

suddenly have this come-to-Jesus moment of, “Oh my gosh, they need our help.

We’re going to come in, help organize the community, figure out what their

priorities are, help them come up with their plan.” …It comes to the end of the

planning process, they put together some kind of report, which is invariably way

too many pages for most people to care to read, and then leave.”

Concerning trust towards government institutions, there are mixed feeling towards them.

A community resident mentioned:

“…there are those who look to the government, and this is our salvation, the

government. Then others, they look at the governments, whoa! The government,

that’s the one that’s allowed it to get to this point.”

On the other hand, an EPA employee described the community’s trust towards the EPA

as the community reached out to them:

“We (EPA) were consulted by the community because the City wouldn’t listen.

So many people said that. I can’t discount it. And that’s what happens in these

environmental issues all around the country. Things kind of boil and bubble for 25

years. And then there’s some sort of event, some crisis, then the federal

government comes in.”

Another salient finding was the apparent lack of trust and negative perceptions

towards the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. The department

appears to be aware of this distrust. This is evident through one example; Trust for Public

Land, a non-profit organization, will facilitate community participation for a stormwater

project in the upcoming months. This can make a difference with how the project is

received by the community and the type of input they give.

Proctor Creek watershed group gives residents political leverage

The Proctor Creek Stewardship Council is a community-led organization where

stakeholders participate in learning and efforts towards Proctor Creek’s restoration. It was

created to support and sustain resident’s engagement efforts through a collaboration of

several organizations and community members who worked within the area and

surroundings for several years. One of the stated goals of the Council is to “advocate for

the fair treatment and inclusion of the underserved Proctor Creek communities in the

planning and implementation of projects.” According to an interviewee from a non-profit

organization who helped to form the Council, it serves as “the voice of the people

towards any development or any planning pertaining to what to do with Proctor Creek.”

For instance, a new stadium is being built at the headwaters of the watershed and project

managers came to the community through the Proctor Creek Stewardship Council. The

community had input on the stormwater infrastructure designers planned to implement.

The interviewee

mentioned:

“…the council is space where people at all levels in the state recognize this is

where you can start the conversation about any issue with Proctor Creek. So when

the stadium was being built, they know there was a council so they said ‘can we

present to you what we want to do?’ And the council told them, yes it’s okay.”

As mentioned previously, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came and presented

their plan for a feasibility study and requested community input. Councilmen and women

come to the council to present the resolutions they are working on that pertains to the

community. While other stakeholders do have input, the concern is what the residents and

stewards have to say. As they gather in a single voice, they consolidate ideas and action

plans to put pressure on those in office to serve them.

Chapter Summary

This section functions as exposé, a topical examination especially of the civic

community conditions. The most conspicuous and also most salient finding was that the

civic community condition attributes were supported by community partnerships. The

next chapter describes participation processes for visioning, education, and planning and

designing green stormwater infrastructure strategies along with the processes’ output.

CHAPTER FIVE

PROCESS, OUTPUT, AND IMPLEMENTATION

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

The conceptual framework from Chapter 2 continues to provide the structure for

this chapter’s organization. This chapter describes the case study of green stormwater

infrastructure development in Proctor Creek through additional context findings,

followed by process, outputs, and implementation themes. Attributes are linked across

the different themes according to the data, and including linkages from the context theme

from Chapter 4. Each section in this chapter answers the following research questions:

The case study intends to show how context and community participation process

elements interact to influence decisions for green stormwater infrastructure development

and implementation. The literature addresses both community participation and green

stormwater infrastructure; however, no study details the interaction of the two fields in

depth. The results in this section address the gap in the existing literature by providing an

in-depth, representative case study. Each section continues to share excerpts and quotes

from documents and interview transcripts to provide evidence that “supports the findings

of the study” (Merriam, 2009 p. 16).

Process Description

In this section I describe visioning, education and capacity building, and planning

and designing processes for green stormwater infrastructure in Proctor Creek watershed.

The findings in this section answer the second research question:

How do community participation mechanisms facilitate decisions for green
stormwater infrastructure?

To answer this question, I focus on discrete participation processes and their

characteristics in terms of type of mechanism, level of participation,

description of

participants, and goal(s) of process. Table 5.1 summarizes the community participation

events directly related to green stormwater infrastructure. I describe these in detail later in

the chapter.

Table 5.1: Discrete community participation processes for green stormwater

infrastructure development

Process Stage

Mechanism Level of Participation

Inform Involve Consult Collaborate Empower

Visioning

o
o Design workshop
o Visioning dinner

Preliminary design

reviews

Draft report review

x
x

x
x
x

x
x

Education and

Capacity

Building

o
o Community forums
o Roundtable discussions
o Tour of GI demonstration

site

x
x
x

x
x

Planning and

Designing

o Workshops
o Meetings
o

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

Figure 5.1 on the following page shows the timeline of events described in this

section. Events were not sequential, but overlapped. Education on green stormwater

infrastructure occurred during sessions of the visioning process to ensure participants

understood the topic and were able to participate effectively. Training for capacity

building was done during the planning for one demonstration project, fully described

later in this section. Finally, three community forums for green stormwater infrastructure

were held between 2015 and 2016. These are not exhaustive participation events, but they

represent the ones commonly highlighted in the community.

Figure 5.1: Timeline of participation process events described in this study

The participative processes in this study align with collaborative participation

(Innes & Booher, 2004) rather than traditional participation. There were more

collaborative dialogues than one way information flows of pre-planned projects thus far.

Stakeholders are cognizant of the social and political context, or become aware of it once

involved. Thus, context recognition created more dynamic processes. Luyet et al. (2012

p.217) asserts that specific social, political and legal contexts give a project its constraints

and explain process choices. In this case, the most prevalent context factors influencing

the push for increasing levels of community participation include

socioeconomic

conditions and civic community conditions.

Social stability largely influenced the type of input the community gave during

participation processes. Interviewees mentioned that the community repeatedly

prioritized prevailing social conditions, such as lack of jobs and abandoned properties

during visioning and planning processes. Some external groups working with the

community learned to keep this socioeconomic context in mind. For example, one group

– the Conservation Fund that worked with the community to implement a park featuring

green stormwater infrastructure, was continually reminded of the need for jobs in the

beginning stages of their community participation processes. An interviewee from that

group said:

“As I mentioned, the loudest message we got was we need jobs…..We went out

of our way to provide not one, but 2 different opportunities for job training for

community members. We really tried to incorporate their needs as much as

possible and to make sure that we thought of this as a community-driven project.”

While this brought the opportunity to align community priorities and stormwater

management priorities, this sometimes stunted achieving higher levels of participation

and prolonged the participation process.

Another main process finding was the perspective and priority for educating the

community on green infrastructure for stormwater management. Interviewees, especially

those who were not community members, spoke of the need for education and outreach

on the topic due to its technical nature. A study on the perspectives of the participation

process for watershed management planning by Webler & Tuler (2001 p. 35) found that

“a good process emphasizes constructive dialogue and education” and that “outreach is of

primary importance.” Participant education on the issue is critical for meaningful

participation (Montalto et al., 2012; Ryan & Brown, 2001). Specific green stormwater

infrastructure forums ̶ described in detail later in this chapter ̶ facilitated the growth of

community knowledge on the subject, while using local knowledge to identify

implementation challenges and to formulate steps to move forward with green

stormwater infrastructure (GI) implementation. Other meetings began by educating the

participants on the subject. This facilitates improvement on the quality of input from

participants. These instances describe that process facilitators went beyond simply

informing about the issues and the proposed project, but engaged participants through

education.

One observation at the green stormwater infrastructure forums was that non-

community residents out-numbered community residents. Stakeholders who were non-

community residents present at these meetings included EPA employees, employees of

non-governmental and non-profit organizations, students and faculty from area

universities. While Webler & Tuler (2001 p. 35) found the perspective that “the goal of

the outreach is to involve people who really can participate meaningfully and

constructively not to merely create large turnouts,” there should be more outreach to

community resident participants since they directly feel the impact of the problems.

This case illustrates that education circumvents the public perception challenge

facing the implementation of green infrastructure for stormwater management. Keeley et

al., (2013 p. 1099) found that there were challenges “making the connection between

unmanaged stormwater and environmental degradation” and “addressing green

stormwater infrastructure in the community.” Interviewees mentioned that the community

wants green stormwater infrastructure in their neighborhoods to address stormwater

issues. Their perceptions were that green stormwater infrastructure could have

multifaceted benefits and so community residents and other stakeholders advocated for it.

The following descriptions of processes substantiate these findings further.

1. Visioning Process

Goal of process

The overall goal of this process was to develop with community input, a

conceptual vision for green space that manages stormwater and acts as a community

amenity. The study proposed parks and green space that included green stormwater

infrastructure strategies on each site.

Type of mechanisms and levels of participation

The visioning process was an 18-month process that began with Steering

Committee meetings involving community leaders. There were twelve recorded Steering

Committee meetings over a nine month period. In addition, there were six public

meetings which began several months into the process. The visioning process hosted by

Park Pride, a nonprofit organization that works with communities in Atlanta to improve

parks, used a more extended and intense visioning process than usual. The Proctor Creek

North Avenue Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision (PNA Study) p. 33

reports:

“In addition to coordinating a series of PNA Steering Committee Meetings, the

Design Team has spoken with the English Avenue Neighborhood Association

twice and hosted a dinner for community input with that organization. Park Pride

hosted several weekend public meetings held at the Neighborhood Union Health

Center. Residents and Park Pride staff went door-to door distributing fliers

highlighting the Visioning process, the public process, and advertising the various

ways available for people to get involved. Park Pride hosted a booth at the

Festival of Lights, where the preliminary plans were shared with residents, and

collected contact information from interested persons.”

The Steering Committee provided information on threats to the success of the

proposed projects. Thus, the level of participation is considered to be consultation in this

case. The public meetings ̶ open to the wider community ̶commenced by educating the

participants about green stormwater infrastructure, which continued into design

workshops, preliminary design review, and plan reviews. The community was informed

with information to help accommodate their decision making roles in the subsequent

meetings.

There was a crucial education component to these meetings especially since most

participants did not know what green stormwater infrastructure was, and thus couldn’t

make decisions towards green infrastructure technologies for stormwater management.

The education component is represented in Figure 5.1 directly under the timespan of the

visioning process. One informant mentioned that even though people evaluated plans,

they harped on core values such as the need for jobs, respecting the historical and cultural

ties in the area while finding a way to reduce flooding. Decisions involving the more

technical aspects were not apparent. However, the community’s preferences were

included. The levels of participation are considered to be informing, involving and

consulting. The document also stated that the community participants agreed that their

views were represented. When a community leader was asked, “what was your

perception of how much the community was able to actually make input into the

decisions that you see coming out?” He replied:

“I think it was kind of hard at first. The first two to three months they didn’t grasp

it grasp it. They had challenges. Because the only thing they were thinking about

was ‘my house is going to be torn down, we don’t have anywhere to stay,’ and we

were like ‘no’. We’re going to build, we going to do some home improvement.

We don’t want to tear it down.”

As to whether he thought they felt engaged in the process, he responded:

“Oh yeah, as a matter of fact those are the ones still there. They’re trying to

further the design plan that we still have in other municipalities and counties and

whatever. Because they’re saying if we can do it in our communities, then we

could do it in our community across the different jurisdictions. The other ones

who left said well look, we’ll take what we know, we’ll add on to it and we’ll

build our own organization. So now we have about 2-3 other organizations that

have been formed since we did this PNA Study.”

Description of participants

The participants included community leaders and residents. The Steering

Committee meetings mostly included community leaders and leaders of non-profits that

worked in the area. The steering committee included approximately 11 persons, and at

the majority of meetings there were more than 5 participants. The public meetings

consisted of residents and leaders, and members of non-profit community groups.

Throughout the visioning process there were approximately 20-30 residents who

participated. Some of these participants were consistent throughout visioning some were

not. With regard to who participated, one interviewee, a community leader said:

“Well we tried to add more people, switch them up because you had different

mindsets coming to the table. Some remained, some didn’t. Some would like to be

part of the planning; some would be a part of the implementation.”

There were intensive outreach attempts to encourage participation. The PNA Study (p. 33)

reported that:

“Park Pride reached out to the three communities via e-mails, their neighborhood

leaders, the 30+ churches in the PNA, and various local non-profits and special

interest groups.”

Type of output

The

Proctor Creek North Avenue Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision

(PNA Study) is the final document from the Visioning process that contains details of

conceptual plans for green stormwater infrastructure sites to promote stormwater

management for combined sewer capacity relief, green space as community amenities,

and greenways for connectivity in the watershed. The document is thought to generally

represent the community’s ideas and input as mentioned by several interviewees and the

document itself. The community vision and goals are incorporated into this document.

2. Education and Capacity Building

Interviewees, documents and informants strongly suggested the need for capacity

building and education to advance green stormwater infrastructure implementation.

While educating and capacity building are considered to be at the informing level of

participation, it is utilized to increase levels of participation. The processes for education

and capacity building aim to empower residents to increase their decision making

capacity towards the issue.

Many efforts were indirectly related to green stormwater infrastructure while

some were more direct. In this section two direct efforts are described in detail. They

include processes for education and capacity building for implementation of a

demonstration site. One interviewee, who considered the process from visioning to

implementing on a green stormwater infrastructure project remarked,

“This community probably knows more about green stormwater infrastructure

than any community in America….We’ve been trying to make sure the

community residents understand that much of the environmental health hazards

that they have, the mold issues, the pollution issues, the litter issues, are directly

related to the need for green stormwater infrastructure in their community.”

Green infrastructure community forums and conference

Table 5.2 presents summarized details of the forums and conference. Originally,

there were three forums planned but only two took place before the conference. These

forums were organized by ECO-Action (Environmental Community Action), a non-profit

organization in collaboration with other partners. The U.S. EPA funded the Green

stormwater infrastructure Initiative through the Urban Waters Small Grants program. An

online article published by ECO-Action, Green stormwater infrastructure at the Atlanta

University Center explains that the initiative facilitated teamwork among residents and

the AUC faculty and students to understand the impacts of the AUC’s runoff and

generate solutions. The initiative targeted this area because there is the potential to

capture up to 22.4 gallons of stormwater on these campuses before running off to the

lower elevation neighborhoods plagued by flooding.

Table 5.2: Green infrastructure community forums and conference details.

Event Date Goals Site

Green
Infrastructure

Community

Forum I

March 17,

2015

 Provide information from community
members, non-profits and

governmental organizations outside

of the AUC

 Identify next steps for continuing
initiatives in green infrastructure

efforts.

(Source: ECO-Action Hosts First Green

Infrastructure Community Forum at Spelman,

online article by ECO-Action)

Spelman College,

Atlanta GA

Green
Infrastructure
Community

Forum II

November 14,

2015

 Share information on green
infrastructure to increase community

awareness.

 Update the community of green
infrastructure activities going on in

the Proctor Creek North Avenue and

Vine City area and also the Atlanta

University Center (AUC).

 Create a structure, a process and a
support system to advance green

infrastructure in the conceptual plan.

(Source: Interview transcripts and researcher

field notes)

Lindsey Street

Baptist Church,

Atlanta GA

Green
Infrastructure

Conference

April 21, 2016

 Increase public awareness of green
infrastructure

 Present student-developed conceptual
plans to capture stormwater at the

AUC center

 Encourage community and AUC
leaders to leverage their resources to

transform these stormwater

conceptual plans into “shovel ready

designs.”

(Source: ECO-Action webpage and researcher

field notes)

Clark Atlanta

University,

Atlanta GA

Goals of Process

The goals of these forums and the conference are summarized in Table 5.2. An

interviewee mentioned that these forums provided a way to engage the community and

keep the passion going to move forward with green stormwater infrastructure. The same

interviewee, referring to the second forum, said that he saw all the goals for that session

being fulfilled the day of the forum. However, the follow through on one of the goals

beyond the forum was not apparent. An example of one instance is the follow through for

the goal “create a structure, a process and a support system to advance green stormwater

infrastructure in the conceptual plan.” Even though a plan for next steps was written,

follow up planning meetings did not occur for the group that was tasked with creating

action steps for “advancing conceptual planning for green stormwater infrastructure

through joint student/community efforts.”

Type of Mechanism and Levels of Participation

Type of mechanism was primarily a forum, a meeting where information and

ideas were exchanged. The conference was a similar style to the forums, the difference

being the scale and the content matter. The conference gave information on the

culmination of efforts since the beginning of the initiative and information on the

progress of the PNA Vision, described in the previous section. At the forums and

conference there were presentations and working groups. The presentations gave

information to and from the community while the working groups facilitated discussions

for “next step action plans” that were feasible for pushing forward green stormwater

infrastructure implementation. Levels of participation associated with these activities are

informing and involving.

In addition, AUC students had the option of taking an elective course that focused

on developing conceptual designs for green stormwater infrastructure. In the process of

the class they were required to consult with community residents about the impacts of the

runoff in their neighborhoods. Thus, the consultation level of participation was achieved

in this process.

Description of Participants

At all three green infrastructure community events, most of the same stakeholder

groups were represented, and many of the same participants attended. Participants

included community groups, residents and leaders, some who identified as faith-based

leaders from community churches. From the academic community, Atlanta University

Center students and faculty, and Georgia State University students had a strong presence

as they presented projects and speeches related to the forum topic. Representatives from

nonprofit organizations and nongovernmental organizations who have consistent

presence in Proctor Creek projects attended. These included Park Pride, West Atlanta

Watershed Alliance, Metro Atlanta Urban Watershed Alliance, the Conservation Fund,

Community Improvement Association representatives, and ECO-Action, who led the

forums’ organization. Government agencies including the U.S. EPA Region IV Atlanta

office, and representatives from the City of Atlanta, Department of Watershed

Management and the Office of Sustainability were present.

Type of output

These forums and the conference allowed time for working groups. Information

was not just given to participants, but roundtable discussions gave opportunities to give

suggestions to improve and advance green stormwater infrastructure efforts. At the first

conference groups discussed and wrote notes on the current status, barriers, opportunities

and realistic next steps. At the second conference discussion groups created written

action plans on four areas including:

1. Developing a Proctor Creek learning exchange

2. Advancing workforce development for green infrastructure

3. Creating a smart relocation resource center

4. Advancing green infrastructure conceptual plans through joint

student/community efforts

(Source: ECO-Action’s online article AUC and Community Together Promote

Green infrastructure at Community Forum 2 and researcher field notes)

The culminating conference enabled students to share their work on conceptual

plans to capture 22 million gallons of stormwater on the AUC campuses. Students gave

suggestions of green stormwater infrastructure strategies suitable for their campuses and

the placement of these technologies on campus. Primary examples included rain gardens

and cisterns.

Skills training for participation in construction of green stormwater

infrastructure demonstration site

Type of Mechanism and Levels of Participation

The project management group for one demonstration project, the Conservation

Fund, worked with two workforce training programs to respond to the community’s

request. Young men received paid training in a range of skill building activities including

masonry, concrete, demolition and deconstruction, asbestos abatement, and other

activities that responded to community needs.

The level of participation for participants was at the information level. An

interviewee, who was a participant in the workforce training program, mentioned that

there was no decision making on their part towards green stormwater infrastructure

decisions.
Description of Participants

Participants in this training included four 18 – 24 year old males from the

community.
Type of output

One of the interviewees from a national non-profit organization mentioned that

some of these young men received preference for hiring at the National Park Service, US

Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service due to the number of hours of training they

received and their acquired skillsets. Also, their training allowed them to be a part of the

construction of Lindsey Street Park, the green stormwater infrastructure demonstration

site. In addition, the participants received additional training from the contractor who

managed the construction of the park.

Planning and Design for green stormwater infrastructure projects

There are two completed demonstration projects. The planning for one of those

sites – Lindsey Street Park is described in this section, along with an incomplete green

stormwater infrastructure capital improvement project – the Boone Boulevard Green

Street project. The first project incorporated non-conventional aspects to the process that

considered several context features of the community. Both projects stemmed from the

PNA Study described earlier.

GI demonstration site Lindsey Street Park

Types of Mechanisms and Level of Participation

The planning for this project incorporated community participation and

engagement focused primarily on the space as a park rather than a stormwater control.

When asked if the community understood the green stormwater infrastructure component

to the park, the interviewee from the Conservation Fund responded that:

“We’ve been trying to make sure the community residents understand that much

of the environmental health hazards that they have, the mold issues, the pollution

issues, the litter issues, are directly related to the need for green stormwater

infrastructure in their community. There’s massive erosion issues community

members are dealing with downstream. I think we’ve definitely tried to make that

a very big part of the conversation.”

The planning process for this project incorporated some non-traditional topics that

included workshops on “racism, power and privilege” to engage the community. Once

again, socioeconomic conditions and the environmental justice context were considered

among other factors that led to these workshops. The same interviewee explained:

“One of the first things we did was we have a group out of our North Carolina

office called Resourceful Communities. They normally work rural, low-income

communities in rural North Carolina. We asked them to come to Atlanta because

we hadn’t really done community engagement before. We didn’t know what we

were doing. We needed help.

They came down. The first thing that we did was we hosted a 2-day work group, a

work shop. Initially my office thought we were hosting a work shop related to

park planning Lindsey Street. The folks in my Resourceful Community groups

quickly told us, “No, you don’t start with a planning of the park. You start with

the real issues that affect communities.””

While these workshops were facilitated in light of the context, other context

factors such as civic community conditions with respect to levels of trust were increased.

This works towards further development in the area.

“They planned a 2-day workshop on racism and power and privilege. Which I

must say honestly scared me to death. I thought, “What are we getting ourselves

into.” It turned out they were so right. It was the best move we ever made. It was

very hard. It was emotional. It was raw. It was painful in many ways. The

community respected us so much more for starting with those big topics for

acknowledging that these issues existed and for acknowledging that we were an

outside national non-profit.”

“I think most the time, the national non-profits, or the bigger groups, come in with

the notion that they’re going to solve your problem instead of the idea that the

community has the solutions to their own problems. When we started with those

bigger topics and started talking about ways to provide an opportunity to give the

community members power and to bring their voice to the table, that really

resonated well with the community members. We gained a lot of trust. We kept

with that model for this.”

Considering the preliminary workshops followed by facilitating the community’s

priorities and inputs for the park, the level of participation is considered to include

informing to empowering. The interviewee who described this process mentioned that at

times they wanted to move ahead with the project, but spent extra time to accommodate

the community’s decision-making.

Description of Participants: Participants included 20-30 community residents over the

span of the planning process.

Goals of process: The goal of the process was to engage the community in planning the

greenspace, a park that included green stormwater infrastructure strategies on site.

Type of output: The type of output was the final plans for the green space designed by a

landscape architecture company.

Boone Boulevard Green Street project

The conceptual design for this project was done internally by the City

of Atlanta

Department of Watershed Management. At the time of writing this report, no community

participation had yet taken place for this project. However, there are plans for community

participation further along in the design process. Considering the technical aspect of the

design work, an interviewee from the Department of Watershed Management explained

that community participation was not suitable up to that point.

“Our department is a technical department…they do public involvement on the

projects but it may seem to the community like it is not early enough in the

process. So with the Boone Boulevard project the department needed to get it to a

point to feel like the project is even feasible. There’s a lot of modeling and

technical calculations and coordinating with other agencies to be done to get it to

what we call a 30% design situation.

Now that we have that, we are ready to share it…we’re ready to put it out on the

street, as far as request for proposals for a design build contractor to put a bid on it

to do the design work. It has taken a really long time to get here. I’ve been telling

the community for a really long time that this took 2 years. But to them it seems

like we’re doing our own thing behind closed doors, like we’re doing all this work

without their input. But in the department we didn’t want to put something out

there that was not fully thought through, and get blasted for it. And also, it’s the

people on top, it’s not like we design the whole thing. It took us 2 years just to get

to 30%.”

The interviewee continued to explain that the community can be involved in

decisions for the placements of the green stormwater infrastructure strategies and through

being educated about the project.

Motivation for Participation and Issues of Non-Participation

After interacting with interview participants and attending meetings, it was

evident that motivation for participation came from having a common goal to resolve to

improve current and future residents’ quality of life. Field notes and interviewee

responses supported this finding. For example, during meetings, older residents often

expressed their desire and interest for improvement, especially in the interest of

generations ahead of them. Similarly, Samuelson et al.( 2005 p. 164) found that citizens

partake in collaborative partnerships because “they believe that the collaborative process

has the potential to enhance the public good by improving the quality of life for all

residents in the watershed.”

At Proctor Creek Stewardship Council meetings residents expressed frustrations

with the lack of progress. This frustration fueled their presence at meetings. Many

residents who attended were older residents, and expressed wanting to enjoy the benefits

of their participation and giving their local knowledge. Correspondingly, Koehler &

Koontz (2007 p. 150) found that citizens actively participate when they feel “comfortable

sharing their opinions with others, and bringing to the group substantial knowledge about

the watershed.” One community resident shared his reason for continual participation for

Proctor Creek projects,

“My motivation is in, since we’ve said we want to work toward creating an

ecological balance in the neighborhood that our children, and grandchildren, and

great-grandchildren can live in, we want to makes sure that we create an

economic balance that our children and grandchildren.”

A student, who worked alongside residents on a collaborative project, had similar

comments to the resident’s response based on her experience and interaction with

residents:

“Some of these people have families that have been in this community for

generations, and that just makes it even more meaningful for them to be there.

They want their kids or grandkids to see the community in a different state. And

that’s why they were so eager to be there. And they were able to help.”

Another respondent, who worked with a community nonprofit organization, expressed

that residents want to be partners for progress in their own communities.

“You know, again, by lifting up the fact that the people in the Proctor Creek

community want to be stakeholders in their own community, not to just see them

as residents, but to see them as partners, with the federal governments, with the

local governments, with the state government agencies.”

Several different reasons were expressed for issues of non-participation, one

being a lack of visible changes despite efforts in previous participation events. For

example, one interviewee, a community coordinator gave his thoughts on reasons why

there may be a lack of participation.

“They go through those meetings, sit through those charrettes, at the end of the

day, they get this report – or maybe they don’t ever even see the report – and they

feel like nothing has really changed. Meanwhile, some grad students or consultant

has made it a nice project for themselves. Of course that generates certain apathy

to participating in any future processes.”

The time of events also posed a challenge. At one community meeting, it was

recounted that meetings should not be on Wednesday evening since that is a common

time for churches in the area to have Bible study. In addition to timing of events, the

respondent shared other reasons.

“Whether it’s scheduling and scheduling conflicts when people are available, to a

lot of people are just too busy to be able to go to another meeting. There’s the

sheer volume of numbers of the different meetings that you have to go to…Of

course, there’s also deliberate exclusion at times, things like that. I would say in

terms of the direct resident engagement, you really need to have a very

strategically planned process to effectively engage at a community. I don’t think

that most of the meetings that I have gone to throughout the course of work in

Proctor Creek have been that, have been really true community engagement in a

lot of ways, or holistic community engagement that has been planned out in a

strategic way. A lot of times, that doesn’t look like meetings; it just might be a

number of different things.”

Here we see how the socioeconomic conditions played a role in issues of non-

participation. Different interviewees did express that the community voiced their

concerns about lack of jobs in the area. Here is how one EPA employee stated the issue.

“This is a community where it’s hard for people to volunteer their time or to

participate because when you have no money, and you’re worried about keeping

your lights on, whether or not somebody’s building a park is not the most

immediate need. As a matter of fact, we got that as feedback originally. People

said, “We’ve got massive drug problems in this community. We don’t have jobs.

We’ve got all these problems. Why do you all want to waste our time talking

about a park?”

Output Description

Many documents and plans exist for Proctor Creek watershed but the ones

directly related to green stormwater infrastructure are discussed here. The most pivotal

document thus far for spurring green stormwater infrastructure in the watershed is the

Proctor Creek North Avenue Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision prepared

by Park Pride. From that study and vision document, plans and designs for future projects

are targeted and being generated. Also, the vision was instrumental in helping to spur

collaborations to allow for the realization of the vision recorded in the document.

Proctor Creek North Avenue Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision

documents overall planning goals including community goals and stormwater

management goals. The document reveals that the community had input in terms of

making their priorities known and the design team’s stormwater management goals

aligned with the community’s goals where feasible. The product was generated by

educating the community on green stormwater infrastructure, considering and respecting

their priorities, and allowing for the inclusion of their decisions. Though there were some

differing views, interviewees generally agreed that this document represented community

input and there were community decision-making contributions to this document. On the

other hand, technical specifications such as stormwater capture and storage targets of the

study were developed by the technical professionals without direct community input.

However, through the collaborative visioning process, technical specifications of green

stormwater infrastructure technologies in green spaces were designed with the

community priorities in mind.

Upper Proctor Creek Watershed Action Plan: A waterway on the rebound,

prepared by the City of Atlanta, Department of Watershed Management includes four

short project descriptions for parks and green space that will function as stormwater

management facilities. The summaries propose that there will be community input to

complete these projects as design work progresses. The Boone Boulevard Green

stormwater infrastructure project, described earlier, is one of the four projects. This

project came out from the PNA Study and is shaped by its stormwater goals. However,

the community was not directly involved in developing this plan.

The current outputs for the Boone Boulevard project include the Boone Boulevard

Green Infrastructure Conceptual Design and Proctor Creek’s Boone Boulevard Green

Street Project Health Impact Assessment. The conceptual design document includes the

conceptual layout, green stormwater infrastructure sizing, stormwater control measures,

technical specifications ̶ soils and size of planter boxes, and the estimated project costs.

The health impact assessment (HIA) document states that “This HIA is informing

DWM’s decision on implementing the proposed Green Street Project as they move

forward in the planning process.” The document also states that “The HIA Core Project

Team conducted the HIA with input and guidance from community residents and an HIA

Technical Advisory Group, which was made up of representatives from several

stakeholder groups.”

As mentioned earlier, student generated conceptual green stormwater

infrastructure plans for AUC campuses were prepared as a way to make progress on

dealing with runoff from those campuses. A technical professional, who is also a

community activist, worked with students to develop these concepts said, “Basically,

they’re conceptual plans. They are to call people’s attention to the possibility.” While

these are written ideas, with community local knowledge input, it can be seen as similar

to the PNA Study document if actions proceed towards working on those ideas.

The output of the visioning process is the document with the most apparent direct

community input. Since the other documents generated thus far were in part influenced

by the study, it can be noted that community participation had indirect roles in the

development of those plans. As more plans move from ideas, to conceptual then final

design plans, there are proposed community engagement strategies throughout the

development processes. Currently, the community had roles in improving the quality of

technical decisions by encouraging and advocating for alternative stormwater

management plans, other than solely traditional infrastructure solutions.

Implementation Description

In this section I describe the stages of implementation, likelihood of

implementation and implementation influencing factors for green stormwater

infrastructure. There is a limited understanding in the links between collaborative

planning and implementation (Koontz & Newig, 2014). This work addresses that gap by

recognizing specific elements of the participation process and the context that influence

implementation. Community participation is embedded within collaborative efforts in this

case context. The findings in this section answer the third research question:

How do context features and community participation processes influence
implementation of green stormwater infrastructure solutions?

To answer this research question, participants were asked “What factors do you

believe will move green stormwater infrastructure implementation forward?” and “how

can the community be a part of moving green stormwater infrastructure forward?”

Generally, participants responded that the community’s role was being educated on green

stormwater infrastructure. Education on the subject is necessary to contribute to buy-in

and also for educating elected officials who represent community residents. Concerning

factors to move implementation forward, participants mentioned factors other than

participation such as funding and politics as the main driving forces. Findings from

Koontz & Newig (2014) support these findings. They found that “linking funding to the

collaborative plan recommendations is an important means to foster implementation.., but

even without such a link, the process of collaborative planning can promote networks,

coordination, and buy-in that promotes implementation, even if the plan itself is not

directly influential” (p. 436).

Stage of

Implementation

The PNA Study (p. 14) reports that “It is expected that the proposed PNA project

will take up to twenty years to implement fully.” The PNA document was published in

2011. From the current implementation trend of green stormwater infrastructure

demonstration projects, that statement appears to hold true, if all the projects in the study

are even feasible and implemented without major delays. This section gives insight to the

current stage of implementation of projects in Proctor Creek watershed, the likelihood of

conceptual projects, and the influencers of project implementation as found in the data.

There are two completed green stormwater infrastructure demonstration projects,

including Vine City Park and Lindsey Street Park previously described. The small 1.2

acre Lindsey Street Park was very resource intensive in terms of time and expense

especially for land acquisition. These two completed projects show that green stormwater

infrastructure has reached to stage four of the implementation, which is “actions taken on

the ground” (Beierle & Cayford, 2002 p. 56). The final stage would be to see the changes

in water quality and runoff quantity, which was observed in its preliminary stage by an

interviewee who worked on the project. However, continuous monitoring over a few

years will determine the project’s effectiveness for water quality, thus limiting the study

of outcomes for this research. When asked about the impact of green stormwater

infrastructure strategies at the park, the interviewee, a young community resident who

worked on the project responded,

“Oh yes, this is my favorite part. The water no longer builds up on our street

because, where the park is located, there’s actually a hill that comes down all of it.

So when it rains, that water is traveling in one direction and that’s right there near

the park. And now that we have that bioswale that actually catches and filters the

water, we have less water build up now. That water has somewhere to go and is

actually being filtered before it’s released to the creek.”

Planning and design progress is taking place for the projects that are mentioned in

the Upper Proctor Creek Watershed Action Plan: A waterway on the rebound document

prepared by the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Published in

February 2016 it states (p. 8):

“Design is under way four each of the four projects, with construction scheduled

to begin as early as 2016 and completed by the end of 2017. Input from the

community will be gathered as project designs continue and before construction

begins.”

The four projects include the Boone Boulevard Green Street, Mims Park Pond,

Westside Park Pond and Proctor Park, stormwater projects that feature green stormwater

infrastructure technologies. Beyond these, there are several more projects that remain at

the conceptual level.

100

Likelihood of Implementation and Influencing Factors

One interviewee was asked about the likelihood of implementation, in reference

to student conceptual plans generated for the AUC campuses. As previously mentioned,

the students’ conceptual plans are “to call people’s attention to the possibility.” They

currently remain conceptual plans, but are being presented to groups that are “all onboard

to try to make some of this stuff happen for Proctor Creek” according to the interviewee.

Thus, the likelihood of implementing them was uncertain according to the technical

expert and community activist, who is from a community non-profit organization. He

mentioned:

“Very supportive of the idea is the fact that we have some 16 federal agencies and

other foundations, corporations, and NGOs. All onboard to try to make some of

this stuff happen for proctor creek. I believe that this process will proceed in a

piecemeal fashion, probably taking as long as 20 years.

Because all we have are the conceptual plans. They still have to go through the

whole business of detailing the sizes of the cisterns and green ways.

We think they will eventually come on board. If we can get to the point where

we’re ready to begin implementation of all that stuff, cost/benefits analysis, detail

analysis of the hydrology and all that in the next two years that would be a big

deal.”

These inter-organizational and political networks provide strong implementation avenues

(Koontz & Newig, 2014; Margerum, 2011).

Subsequent interview questions gave insight into the likelihood

of implementation

as it relates to factors other than community participation. Interviewees were asked “what

are some factors do you think it will take to advance green stormwater infrastructure

implementation in Proctor Creek?” All those who were asked mentioned factors mostly

101

unrelated to community participation. However, the participation aspect interviewees

referred to was the need for educating the public on green stormwater infrastructure, a

process that has begun to take place through the green stormwater infrastructure forums

and conference held. Also mentioned was that implementation for future demonstration

projects can build from the levels of trust achieved and capitals achieved during past

community participation processes. However, this only is possible if a majority of

participants continue to participate in subsequent processes.

Project feasibility is a major factor especially for projects like this containing

several technical variables. For example, in this case, sites may not be feasible for certain

green stormwater infrastructure technologies even though initially included in the PNA

Study. During the visioning process, the PNA Study (p. 34, 45) reported that the PNA

design team ̶ after site assessments and community input ̶ selected potential project sites.

One technical factor necessary to consider is soil suitability to promote runoff infiltration.

In September 2015, a U.S. EPA team from the Office of Research and Development did

soil assessments at potential green stormwater infrastructure sites to test the suitability of

soils by its infiltration rates. Results from those tests are to inform and guide green

stormwater infrastructure use. An example of a non-technical factor is the issue of land

acquisition. Land titles were difficult to trace and contributed to the lengthy process for

the land at Lindsey Street Park.

Federal partnerships and partnerships among organizations are linked to the

availability of funding and resources. For instance, since the Urban Waters Federal

102

Partnership began, there has been resource allocation for capacity building, community

engagement and other programs. Also, recall that the conceptual design work for the

Boone Boulevard Green Street was funded by an Urban Waters grant from the EPA. That

project is now on track to completion. Political will strongly influences whether or how

quickly a project is finished. In addition, regulatory controls and ordinances can dictate

the type of projects that are implemented. On the local level, one interviewee gave an

example:

“If the Mayor, any Mayor, says I want this done and I want it done before the

soccer stadium opens in October 2017…And you know people just start doing

stuff. It’s because we work for the Mayor. There’s a political push, there’s a

bureaucracy, and you think you’re doing the best thing based on your technical

skills and there’s not always the right type of communication that happens.”

These implementation influencing factors mentioned here are not comprehensive but

highlight the most apparent ones that were found in the data.

103

Summary of Findings and Discussion

The evidence collected for this case presents the role of community participation

in the development of green infrastructure for stormwater management. The analysis and

interpretation provide the framing for a socio-technical view for green stormwater

infrastructure. Social contexts especially influence process dimensions,

characteristics

and outputs, which affect the implementation of infrastructure.

Frameworks in the literature describe unidirectional interaction from context to

process (Sabatier et al., 2005), or participation process within the context (Luyet et al.,

2012). In this case, the links between context and process are apparent, and so is the

interrelationship between context and implementation. Collaborative efforts and

partnerships build civic community conditions including human, social and political

capital through community participation processes. Context variables, in particular social

conditions, were considered and accounted for mechanism choices, the flow of the

processes. For instance, recall that social conditions dictated community priorities during

participation processes. Thus, addressing the prevailing social conditions can play a vital

role in creating more efficient participation processes for green stormwater infrastructure.

The multilayered benefits of green stormwater infrastructure can create stronger feedback

by simultaneously addressing multiple goals and priorities for both context and

participation processes.

This work considers education and capacity building as part of the participation

process. Through these processes, residents not only gained knowledge but also had the

opportunity to contribute their local knowledge to discussions. They were consulted for

104

their input and empowered in some cases with decision making. Education on green

stormwater infrastructure allowed for community buy-in and advocacy for green

stormwater infrastructure, and this education is expected to have greater impact for future

implementation.

Analysis and interpretation of the results describe a probable causal link between

context variables and implementation. Government involvement through funding and

collaborative partnerships that facilitate political leverage, provide strong avenues for

increasing implementation feasibility. Community participation processes that capitalize

on these networks influence implementation. Furthermore, the analysis of the results

shows relationship between the process of educating the community on green stormwater

infrastructure and the influence on implementation. Buy-in and educating elected

officials are also driving forces behind implementation. The outcome link is represented

by a dotted line because outcomes of implemented and proposed projects will take

several months, and years to truly recognize. The scope of this research does not include

the realized outcomes. A longitudinal study would be able to show and confirm that

causal link.

To summarize, the most salient findings from this study are listed below.

1. The context attributes interact especially through the influence of civic community

conditions. Collaborative community partnerships help to build social, human, and

political capital while addressing issues such as the ecological issues, flooding and

105

stormwater management, and socioeconomic conditions. Community participation in

this case is embedded in collaborative partnerships.

2. Education on green stormwater infrastructure goes beyond simply informing

participants about the issues and project alternatives. Education and capacity building

is a crucial part in the participation process to gain useful input for technical projects.

It improves the process, creates a more informed public, leverages local knowledge

and addresses public perception challenge of using green stormwater infrastructure.

3. Social conditions highly influence the participation processes by dictating the

priorities the community develops during participation processes. For example, socio-

economic conditions play a role in understanding the characteristics of participation

mechanisms and the levels of participation involved.

4. Factors such as funding and political will promote green stormwater infrastructure

more so than community participation. Context factors including

government

involvement and collaborative partnerships have direct influence on availability of

funding and help to facilitate political will respectively. However, community

participation plays a role in implementation through processes to educate the

community, thereby increasing buy-in for green stormwater infrastructure and

facilitating community education towards elected officials.

106

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research was to understand the role of community

participation in green stormwater infrastructure development. The findings and

discussion were presented in the previous two chapters, and this chapter focuses on the

contributions of the findings, and its implications. The chapter concludes with a

discussion of future research recommendations.

Research Contributions

The findings suggest that community participation for green stormwater

infrastructure is supported by collaborative approaches to community participation in

planning, design and implementation. Also, it suggests a greater focus is needed in the

educational aspect of participation processes for green stormwater infrastructure. The

infrastructure’s technical nature requires that a base level understanding of the topic is

achieved to have effective and meaningful participation. Additionally, implementation is

encouraged by educating the community on the issue, along with other influencing

context factors.

Mainly, this work contributes to the further expansion and generalization of

public participation theory. Descriptive explanations of context, community participation

processes, and implementation for green stormwater infrastructure development extend

the use of public participation literature. For instance, this work affirms Beierle’s (1999)

social goals of public participation in environmental decisions especially with respect to

107

incorporating public values into decisions, and educating and informing the public.

Theories from Sabatier et al.’s (2005) framework are also supported by the findings. For

instance, upon examining civic community conditions such as levels of trust and social

capital for this study, it was found that it corresponds with Leach & Sabatier’s (2005)

work that reveal the importance of trust and social capital for partnership agreements.

Additionally, the existing literature that reveals the influence of socio-economic

conditions on aspects of participation processes are affirmed in this study as described in

the previous chapter.

With respect to the growing green stormwater infrastructure literature, this work

addresses the gap in literature by examining its community participation aspect.

Additionally, this study provides a representative case for community participation in

green stormwater infrastructure planning and implementation. However, this case’s

specific contexts such as a high percentage of African Americans residing in the study

area, and low-income levels must be considered for transferring insights from this case;

such context factors are shown to influence participation processes. Still, the attributes

explored and examined in this case can be studied for other similar cases, especially with

respect to their interactions depicted in Figure 2.3 and explained in the previous chapter.

108

Implications of Research

Insights from this work can inform frameworks for community participation and

engagement for green stormwater infrastructure projects in urban areas. For instance, part

of the City of Atlanta’s plan for green stormwater infrastructure implementation is to

develop a framework for outreach and community engagement. This work gives a

comprehensive understanding of a case which can be used to inform these efforts,

especially in this research’s case study area. Similarly, insights can be used in other urban

areas to improve participation processes by capitalizing on case context features such as

collaborative community partnerships.

Furthermore, a second implication is supporting and enhancing the resources of

community organizations and partnerships. Federal, state and local government agencies

can provide funding through grants to support collaborative partnership efforts. These

efforts have been shown to facilitate more effective participation processes that build

social, human and political capital. It is also necessary to contribute to avenues for

capacity building so that communities are better equipped to solve problems in their area.

Within design and engineering practice, one implication is to better understand

social constraints. Understanding social conditions, like the ones explored in in the

context theme of this research, can help to encourage designs that solve multiple

problems simultaneously. For instance, green stormwater infrastructure can be used to

create community amenities while fulfilling stormwater objectives and performance

goals. Thus, designs can address social constraints as well. Traditionally, engineers are

109

adept at technical challenges while considering costs, and more recently, environmental

constraints. However, much more work is needed to develop the consideration of social

constraints.

Within engineering education, findings from this work can be incorporated into

educational materials for civil engineering classes to show relevance of community

participation for stormwater infrastructure projects. This can complement engineering

education in that it can broaden students’ perspectives about engineering approaches to

civil infrastructure. Most students gain an understanding and practice the engineering

design process throughout their education. They are trained to solve problems with

defined constraints, and to apply similar techniques to different problems. Though this is

a necessary component of engineering education, students also need to understand that

they are being trained to address societal needs rather than impose solutions.

Recommendations for Future Research

Further research can build from the descriptive and causal analysis to measure

how much case context factors influence participation process features and

implementation through regression analysis. Similarly, another study can measure how

much participation process variables influence implementation. This approach would use

multiple regression analysis to analyze factors that relate participation process variables

to likelihood of implementation, while measuring other factors that influence

110

implementation as well. Having numeric values of influence can contribute to a variety of

model building techniques, for example, systems dynamics and agent based modeling.

Another avenue for future research involves using social network analysis to

investigate the relationships among stakeholders in collaborative efforts for decentralized

water infrastructure. This work has value to inform and improve planning and design

processes that incorporate a range of stakeholders, which is now more common for

decentralized water infrastructure. To quantify and qualify the impact of collaborative

decisions, implementation outcomes can be measured through investigating technical

performance of water systems.

One straightforward avenue to extend this research is to include additional case

studies with similar context features for multiple case study analysis. Cases can be

compared holistically or with embedded units of analysis. If done considering embedded

units, the units of analysis would be green stormwater projects and would be chosen

based on the scale and the size of the project.

APPENDICES

111

Appendix A

Informed

Consent

Information about Being in a Research Study

Clemson University

Understanding the role of community participation in design decisions for

stormwater management

Description of the Study and Your Part in It

Leidy Klotz, along with Nicole Barclay, is inviting you to take part in a research study.

Leidy Klotz is an associate professor of Civil Engineering at Clemson University. Nicole

Barclay is a graduate student at Clemson University, running this study with the help of

Leidy Klotz. The purpose of this research is to understand the influence of community

participation for infrastructure decisions between green and traditional infrastructure with

respect to stormwater management.

Your part in the study will be to respond to interview questions. It will take you about 30

minutes to be in this study. Interviews will be audio recorded and the recordings will be

destroyed when the analysis for the study is complete.

Risks and Discomforts

We do not know of any risks or discomforts to you in this research study.

Possible Benefits

We do not know of any way you would benefit directly from taking part in this study.

However, understanding the role of community participation can lead to more informed

investments in this area, and subsequently encourage more green stormwater

infrastructure decisions for stormwater management.

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality

With your permission, we would like to include your name in our research reports and

writings subject to publication.

112

If you prefer that we keep your identity private, we will do everything we can to protect

your privacy and confidentiality. We will not tell anybody outside of the research team

that you were in this study or what information we collected about you in particular.

Choosing to Be in the Study

You do not have to be in this study. You may choose not to take part and you may choose

to stop taking part at any time. You will not be punished in any way if you decide not to

be in the study or to stop taking part in the study.

Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns about this study or if any problems arise, please

contact Leidy Klotz at Clemson University at 864.656.3326.

If you have any questions or concerns about your rights in this research study, please

contact the Clemson University Office of Research Compliance (ORC) at 864-656-6460

or irb@clemson.edu. If you are outside of the Upstate South Carolina area, please use the

ORC’s toll-free number, 866-297-3071.

Consent

I have read this form and have been allowed to ask any questions I might have. I

agree to take part in this study.

All information that is obtained with this study and that can be identified with you will

remain confidential unless you agree to disclosure of your identity or as required by law.

Please indicate if your name may be used in publications or presentations by selecting

one of the options below:

____ You MAY use my name in research reports and writings subject to

publication.

____ You MAY NOT use my name in research reports and writings subject to

publication.

Participant’s signature: _____________________________Date: _________________

mailto:irb@clemson.edu

113

Appendix B

Interview Protocol

Background

1. Can you tell me about your background?

Probe questions:

i. How long have live in this neighborhood?

ii. What organizations are you a part of for Proctor Creek efforts/what is

your role in this organization?

iii. How long have you been involved?

Context

1. Can you describe some of the problems related to stormwater management and

infrastructure?

2. How have different groups been working with the community to address

challenges?

Probe questions:

i. Have you seen issues of conflict/different agendas?

ii. Can you tell me about the levels of trust within the community towards

different organizations/government institutions?

Process

1. Tell me about your experience during the _____ participation process.

Probe questions:

i. Do you think that the community’s concerns were addressed? Can you

elaborate?

2. Can you tell me about the PNA Study?

Probe question:

i. Do you think the community’s ideas and contributions were represented in

the final document? Can you elaborate?

114

3. What efforts have there been for capacity building and education for community

residents?

Probe question:

i. Can you describe further?

4. What are the issues with getting community members to participate?

Outputs

1. What documents and decisions have been made for green stormwater

infrastructure development in Proctor Creek neighborhoods?

Implementation

1. What factors do you think it will take to advance green stormwater infrastructure

in Proctor Creek?

2. What do you think is the role of community participation in green stormwater

infrastructure implementation?

Wrap-up Questions

1. Is there anything else you would like to add?

2. Who else would you recommend I talk to?

115

Appendix C

List of Documents

1. Proctor Creek North Avenue Watershed Basin: A Green Infrastructure Vision –

prepared by Park Pride

2. Boone Boulevard Green Infrastructure Conceptual Design – prepared by City of

Atlanta, Department of Watershed

Management

3. Proctor Creek’s Boone Boulevard Green Street Project Health Impact

Assessment – prepared by the EPA

4. Proctor Creek – Headwaters to Chattahoochee River: Watershed Improvement

Plan – prepared by Atlanta Regional Commission

5. Visioning for Green Infrastructure

–

prepared by ECO-Action

6. Upper Proctor Creek Watershed Action Plan: A waterway on the rebound –

prepared by the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management.

7. Proctor Creek Problems – prepared by the EPA

8. Proctor Creek Community Engagement 3‐Step Plan – prepared by the EPA

9. Proctor Creek Final Fact Sheet – Making a Visible Difference – prepared by the

EPA

10. Partners for progress in Proctor Creek: Recreating a Sustainable Creekside

Community in the City, The Urban Waters Federal Partnership – prepared by the

EPA

116

11. Implementing Green stormwater infrastructure: Atlanta’s Post-Development

Stormwater Ordinance – prepared by City of Atlanta, Department of Watershed

Management

12. City of Atlanta: Green Infrastructure Strategic Action Plan – prepared by the City

of Atlanta

13. AUC Green Infrastructure Community Forum Agenda: Spelman College, Atlanta

– prepared by ECO-Action

14. Green Infrastructure Curriculum Guide: A Resource for Infusing Green

infrastructure into AUC Coursework

15. ECO-Action Hosts First Green Infrastructure Community Forum at Spelman –

prepared by ECO-Action

16. AUC and Community Together Promote Green Infrastructure at Community

Forum 2 – prepared by ECO-Action

117

Appendix D

Codebook

Context

Attribute/Code When to use Brief Definition/Explanation

type of issue flooding conditions;

stormwater

management issues

describes the case situation and its

characteristics
ecological
conditions

issues of water

quality; stream

hydrology

characterized by issues that deal water quality,

stream hydrology, hydrological processes,

species variation

socioeconomic
conditions

income, education

status, employment

the general income levels, education status, and

occupations in the case community

government-

institutional

settings

government
involvement

interacting government agencies at the federal,

state and local levels

civic
community
conditions

human capital “the native intelligence, skills, abilities,

education, and health of individuals within a

community” (Flora, 2004 p. 8)

social capital “community characteristic based on the

interactions among individuals and groups.

Includes mutual trust, reciprocity, collective

identity, cooperation and a sense of a shared

future” (Flora, 2004 p. 9)

political capital “Political capital is the ability of a community

influence the distribution of resources and

determine which resources are made

available

influence the distribution of resources and
to
determine which resources are made

available” (Flora, 2004, p. 10)

levels of trust participant trust in government agencies and

stakeholders holder groups

issues of conflict

pre-existing issues of disagreements

118
Process
participation

mechanisms

participation
mechanisms

the method that facilitates participation

processes and the level of participation

characteristics

of mechanisms

description of
participants

characteristics of participants

type of output product generated from participation process

goal of process objectives to be accomplished during the

process
Attribute/Code When to use Brief Definition/Explanation

Output

decisions and

plans

decisions recorded in

plans and documents

describes recorded contribution, decisions, and

plans
Implementation

stage of

implementation

describes stage of

implementation

point in the process of implementation

likelihood of
implementation

describes likelihood

of implementation

prospect of implementation

implementation

influencers

implementation

influencing factors

factors that have an impact on implementation

outcomes

119

Appendix E

Data Reference Counts

Table 7.1 presents a summary of number of coded sources and references for the

theoretical constructs of this case which were used as the codes for this case. All codes

are not considered to be equal. For example, the type of issue was not necessarily more

important than the ecological conditions. This table is included to show the

representativeness of the attributes in the data.

Table 7.1: Summary of reference counts for coded data

Theme Attribute
Number of

sources

referenced

Number of

references

Type of issue 20 47

Ecological conditions 10 16

Context Socioeconomic conditions

6 16

Civic community conditions

8 21

Government-institutional settings 12 23

Community Participation and

Collaboration

18 62

Type of mechanism and Characteristics

12 43

Process Issues of non-participation

9 13

Motivation for participation 6 10

Education and Capacity Building 18 57

120

Output Decisions and Plans 10 27

Stage of Implementation

Likelihood of Implementation

Implementation Forces other than public participation

influencing implementation

10 31

Stormwater Control Objectives &

Performance Goals

121

REFERENCES

Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In. In Cities of the

Future: Towards Integrated Sustainable Water and Landscape Management. IWA

Publishing (pp. 267–283).

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American

Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

ASCE | 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure | Drinking Water: Overview.

(n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2014, from

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/drinking-water/overview

Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in

Environmental Decisions. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 75–103.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00879.x

Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in

Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future.

Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes

and Communities.

Island Press.

Benson, D., Fritsch, O., Cook, H., & Schmid, M. (2014). Evaluating participation in

WFD river basin management in England and Wales: Processes, communities,

outputs and outcomes. Land Use Policy, 38, 213–222.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.004

122

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: a

roadmap frombeginning to end. Los Angeles: Sage

Publications.

Brody, S. D. (2003). Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of

Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 407–419.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X03022004007

Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating Citizen Participation

in Plan Making: Six Strategic Planning Choices. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 69(3), 245–264.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308978018

Burby, R. J. (2003). Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government

Action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33–49.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292

Butler, D., & Parkinson, J. (1997). Towards sustainable urban drainage. Water Science

and Technology, 35(9), 53–63.

Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building Community Capacity A Definitional Framework and

Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative. Urban Affairs Review,

36(3), 291–323. http://doi.org/10.1177/10780870122184876

Corburn, J. (2003). Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making

Improving Urban Planning for Communities at Risk. Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 22(4), 420–433.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X03022004008

123

Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: making better decisions

through citizen involvement. John Wiley & Sons.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Design of Urban Stormwater Controls. (2012). McGraw-Hill.

Dietz, M. E. (2007). Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current Research

and Recommendations for Future Directions. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution,

186(1–4), 351–363. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z

Duram, L., & Brown, K. (1999). Insights and Applications Assessing Public Participation

in U.S. Watershed Planning Initiatives. Society & Natural Resources, 12(5), 455–

467. http://doi.org/10.1080/089419299279533

Flora, C. B. (2004). Social Aspects of Small Water Systems. Journal of Contemporary

Water Research & Education, 128(1), 6–12. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-

704X.2004.mp128001002.x

Forester, J. (2006). Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from

Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations. Journal

of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447–456.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976765

Genskow, K. D., & Born, S. M. (2006). Organizational Dynamics of Watershed

Partnerships: A Key to Integrated Water Resources Management. Journal of

Contemporary Water Research & Education, 135(1), 56–64.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp135001007.x

124

Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Ginn, S., & Gilbert, D. (2005). Understanding the role of

land use in urban stormwater quality management. Journal of Environmental

Management, 74(1), 31–42. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.08.006

Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., &

Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science,

319(5864), 756–760. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195

Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. G., Pickett, S. T. A., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated

Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological Systems Urban ecological

systems present multiple challenges to ecologists—pervasive human impact and

extreme heterogeneity of cities, and the need to integrate social and ecological

approaches, concepts, and theory. BioScience, 50(7), 571–584.

http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0571:IATLTO]2.0.CO;2

Guest, J. S., Skerlos, S. J., Barnard, J. L., Bruce Beck, M., Daigger, G. T., Hilger, H., …

Love, N. G. (2009). A New Planning and Design Paradigm to Achieve

Sustainable Resource Recovery from Wastewater. Environmental Science &

Technology, 43(16), 6126–6130.

IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. (2014). Retrieved May 28, 2016, from

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/Foundations_Course/IAP

2_P2_Spectrum

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the

21st century, Planning Theory & Practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4),

419–436.

125

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It

Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x

Keeley, M., Koburger, A., Dolowitz, D. P., Medearis, D., Nickel, D., & Shuster, W.

(2013). Perspectives on the Use of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater

Management in Cleveland and Milwaukee. Environmental Management, 51(6),

1093–1108. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0032-x

Kloss, C. (2008). Green Infrastructure for Urban Stormwater Management (pp. 1–7).

American Society of Civil Engineers. http://doi.org/10.1061/41009(333)74

Koehler, B., & Koontz, T. M. (2007). Citizen Participation in Collaborative Watershed

Partnerships. Environmental Management, 41(2), 143–154.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9040-z

Koontz, T. M., & Newig, J. (2014). From Planning to Implementation: Top-Down and

Bottom-Up Approaches for Collaborative Watershed Management. Policy Studies

Journal, 42(3), 416–442. http://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12067

Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What Do We Know and Need to Know about

the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management? Public

Administration Review, 66, 111–121.

Laurian, L. (2004). Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Findings

from Communities Facing Toxic Waste Cleanup. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 70(1), 53–65.

126

Leach, W. D., & Pelkey, N. W. (2001). Making Watershed Partnerships Work: A Review

of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and

Management, 127(6), 378–385. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9496(2001)127:6(378)

Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W., & Sabatier, P. A. (2002). Stakeholder partnerships as

collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management

in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,

21(4), 645–670. http://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10079

Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Are trust and social capital the keys to success?

Watershed partnerships in California and Washington. In Swimming upstream:

Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 233–258).

Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and

Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking. American Political Science

Review, null(4), 491–503. http://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540505183X

Loh, C. G. (2012). Four Potential Disconnects in the Community Planning Process.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 33–47.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11424161

Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M. B., & Buttler, A. (2012). A framework to

implement Stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of

Environmental Management, 111, 213–219.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.026

127

Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and

Management. MIT Press.

Marsalek, J., & Chocat, B. (2002, January 1). International Report: Stormwater

management.

Retrieved July 8, 2015, from

http://www.iwaponline.com.libproxy.clemson.edu/wst/04606/wst046060001.htm

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.

Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A

Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Montalto, F. A., Bartrand, T. A., Waldman, A. M., Travaline, K. A., Loomis, C. H.,

McAfee, C., … Boles, L. M. (2012). Decentralised green infrastructure: the

importance of stakeholder behaviour in determining spatial and temporal

outcomes. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(12), 1187–1205.

http://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2012.671834

Mostert, E. (2003). The challenge of public participation. Water Policy, (5), 179–197.

Neumann, J. E., Price, J., Chinowsky, P., Wright, L., Ludwig, L., Streeter, R., …

Martinich, J. (2014). Climate change risks to US infrastructure: impacts on roads,

bridges, coastal development, and urban drainage. Climatic Change, 1–13.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1037-4

Niemczynowicz, J. (1999). Urban hydrology and water management – present and future

challenges. Urban Water, 1(1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-

0758(99)00009-6

128

Nirupama, N., & Simonovic, S. P. (2007). Increase of Flood Risk due to Urbanisation: A

Canadian Example. Natural Hazards, 40(1), 25–41.

Parkinson, J. (2003). Drainage and stormwater management strategies for low-income

urban communities. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2), 115–126.

http://doi.org/10.1177/095624780301500203

Parkinson, J., & Mark, O. (2005). Urban Stormwater Management in Developing

Countries. IWA Publishing.

Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects. Washington, DC:

World Bank.

Pickett, S. T. A., Jr, W. R. B., Dalton, S. E., Foresman, T. W., Grove, J. M., & Rowntree,

R. (1997). A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban

areas. Urban Ecosystems, 1(4), 185–199.

http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018531712889

Priscoli, J. D. (2004). What is Public Participation in Water Resources Management and

Why is it Important? Water International, 29(2), 221–227.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02508060408691771

Randolph, J. (2012). Environmental Land Use Planning and Management (2nd edition).

Island Press.

Rauch, W., Seggelke, K., Brown, R., & Krebs, P. (2005). Integrated Approaches in

Urban Storm Drainage: Where Do We Stand? Environmental Management, 35(4),

396–409. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0114-2

129

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A

literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Roy, A. H., Wenger, S. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., Shuster, W. D., …

Brown, R. R. (2008). Impediments and Solutions to Sustainable, Watershed-Scale

Urban Stormwater Management: Lessons from Australia and the United States.

Environmental Management, 42(2), 344–359. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-

9119-1

Ryan, R., & Brown, R. (2001). Value of Public Participation: Policy for Stormwater

Quality for the Watershed. In Watershed Management and Operations

Management 2000 (pp. 1–13). American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved

from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40499%282000%2962

Sabatier, P. A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., & Matlock, M.

(2005). Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed

Management. MIT Press.

Saghafian, B., Farazjoo, H., Bozorgy, B., & Yazdandoost, F. (2007). Flood

Intensification due to Changes in Land Use. Water Resources Management,

22(8), 1051–1067.

Saldana, J. (2009). Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications.

Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research.

Samuelson, C. D., Vedlitz, A., Whitten, G. D., Matlock, M., Alston, L., Peterson, T. R.,

& Gilbertz, S. J. (2005). Citizen Participation and Representation in Collaborative

130

Engagement Process. In Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to

Watershed Management (pp. 137–169). MIT Press.

Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: studying how things work. The Guilford Press.

Stratus Consulting Inc. (2009). A Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Traditional and

Green Infrastructure Options for Controlling CSO Events in Philadelphia’s

Watersheds: Final Report.

Tang, Z., & Brody, S. D. (2009). Linking Planning Theories with Factors Influencing

Local Environmental-Plan Quality. Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design, 36(3), 522–537. http://doi.org/10.1068/b34076

United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects. Retrieved from

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights

U.S. EPA. (2008). Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress. U.S. EPA.

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

06/documents/cwns2008rtc

U.S. EPA. (2010). Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing

Stormwater with Green Infrastructure. EPA Office of Wetlands, Ocean and

Watersheds.

US EPA. (2014a). Urban Waters Federal Partnership [Overviews & Factsheets,].

Retrieved July 8, 2015, from

http://www.urbanwaters.gov/?_ga=1.26032446.2090089352.1425048440

131

US EPA. (2014b). What is Green Infrastructure? [Data & Tools]. Retrieved June 4, 2016,

from zotero://attachment/280/

Wang, X. (2001). Assessing Public Participation in U.S. Cities. Public Performance &

Management Review, 24(4), 322–336.

Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2001). Public Participation in Watershed Management Planning:

Views on Process from People in the Field. Human Ecology Review, 8(2), 29–39.

WERF | Online Tools. (2009). Retrieved June 4, 2016, from

http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/studies_orlando_fl.htm

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). SAGE

Publications.

Blank Page

Annotated Bibliography

Akange, S. S. (2016). Impact of potable water availability on economic development of north Benue state (Order No. 10240266). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1834498174). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1834498174?accountid=14872

Scope

This dissertation examines how economic development and social transformation deficiencies in Benue state, Nigeria are caused by lack of water or inadequate water supply.

Purpose

The study conducts a quantitative, non-experimental and cross-sectional research to gauge of the lack of portable water availability in Benue state and its socioeconomic development impacts thereof.

Philosophical Approach

The researcher adopted a quantitative, non-experimental and cross-sectional approach in the study because it is best suited to examine the complex relationships and correlations that exist between variables. This approach is also more practical when conducting research on rural community settings where decision-making agencies are involved.

Underlying Assumptions

One of the paper’s underlying assumption is that the lack of portable water availability is directly linked to other variables. In addition, the paper’s second assumption is that the direct link between other variables and lack of potable water availability has significant impacts on Benue’s economic development and social change.

Research

The researcher adopted survey-sampling methodology, where participants, were interviewed in lieu of the impacts of lack of potable water or its inadequacy on their economic and social development.

Limitations

The researcher indicated that paper’s limitation is the lack of political will in Benue state to implement the findings of the study. According the researcher this lack of political will undermines the implementation of policies that seek to enhance social-economic development in Benue state.

Opportunities for further inquiry

The researcher indicated that there is need for further research on other areas that have the potential to serve as great opportunities to develop and improve Benue’s subsector services.

Validity of use

This dissertation was essential as it illustrated how lack of portable water availability has impacted Benue’s economic and social development.

Madsen, T. (2014). Evaluation of a leadership program’s impact on participants and civic engagement (Order No. 3640165). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1619572076). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1619572076?accountid=14872

Scope

The dissertation explores how leadership programs have impacted the participants civic engagement in the US.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to evaluate and address the gap in the program assessment to effectively determine how it has impacted the participant’s civic engagement.

Philosophical Approach

The researcher adopted a mixed-method approach which focuses on increasing a leader’s capacity and to enable one to connect with the participants in a way that there is equitable sharing of resources and effect full change implementation.

Underlying Assumptions

The study contained several assumptions. The first underlying assumption in the study was that it was hoped that the responses given by the participants was honest and accurate. The second underlying assumption was that survey conducted in the research provided relevant data that addressed all the research questions.

Research

The researcher used summative program evaluation based on Community Leadership Survey that was sent to the program’s association comprising of 448 graduates from 2003 to 2012 which had a total yield of 155 surveys.

Limitations

The first limitation of the study was the inability of the programs curriculum design to reveal the long-term impacts on the graduates and the ability to achieve the program objectives. The second limitation was the lack of adequate resources, which hampered the ability to conduct an internal summative evaluation of the program. The third limitation was lack of adequate financial resources to contract external researchers.

Opportunities for further inquiry

The study illustrated that the local MWCLP and alumni association are the primary stakeholders who have an opportunity to address the gap between in the achieving the program objectives and decision-making authorities.

Validity of use

The study showed how program assessment impacted the participants engagement in civic duties.

Owusu-Achiaw, K. (2013). The effect of community participation on affordable housing: A study of a housing program in a borough of New York City (Order No. 3565621). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1415457665). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1415457665?accountid=14872

Scope

The research explores how community participation in reference formulating affordable housing.

Purpose

The objective of this study was to examine how effective community participation via exploration of particular program in the US leads to affordable housing.

Philosophical Approach

The study employed community participation approach in reference to provision of affordable housing programs. The approach provides sustainable education and outreach programs to the public on the best ways and practices of having affordable housing.

Underlying Assumptions

The first underlying researcher’s assumption is that the selected participants in the study provided accurate and forthcoming responses in reference to the interview questions on the participants’ experience and knowledge in affordable housing. The second assumption was that the participants’ experiences were instrumental in helping them express their perceptions on community participation. The third assumption was that the participants voluntarily responded to interview questions.

Research

The researcher used semi structured interviews where open-ended questions were posed to the participants and used to collect lived experiences.

Limitations

(1). There was small sample used of the original population due to the participant’s financial and time constraints. (2) The views and responses expressed by the participants may not accurately reflect those of the selected community. (3) The research methodology used was inherently limited.

Opportunities for further inquiry

The research deducted that if community members played a leading role, there would be positive social change in reference to affordable housing. In addition, if extensive education is conducted, community members can be able to use their abilities to take effective measures to promote positive social change.

Validity of use

The study indicates that it is imperative for community members to have positive social change to address their housing needs.

Engelbright, C. L. (2015). Planning for a community supported farmers market in a rural USDA food desert (Order No. 3707617). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1696319272). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1696319272?accountid=14872

Scope

The study seeks to develop community initiative to illustrate how it can effectively address the inadequate access to fruits and vegetables to persons living in USDA designated food desert.

Purpose

The study’s purpose is to develop and plan for implementation and evaluation of farmers who are supported by the community, residing in South Wood County to ensure that the farmers’ access to fruits and vegetables is increased.

Philosophical Approach

The researcher conducted the study based on three approaches. (1) Assembling interdisciplinary project team comprising of community stakeholders. (2) Use of literature review on the best practices to have a sustainable farmers’ market. (3) Creation of a development plan to review literature used in the study.

Underlying Assumptions

(1) Produce prices will reduce in the farmer’s market when compared to the local retail outlet. (2) Implementing local and sustainable food system will increase the access to fresh produce and at the same time increase the community health.

Research

The researcher adopted survey-sampling methodology, where participants, were interviewed on the experiences on lack of affordable and fresh fruits and vegetables.

Limitations

(1) There was limited community resident participation. (2) The town hall meeting used to conduct the meeting was small. (3) Bad weather conditions hampered travelling to conduct interviews and attend meetings. (4) The town hall meetings coincided with a large sporting event, which significantly reduced the level of attendance.

Opportunities for further inquiry

If there is a liaison between the community and other government authorities, the cost of fresh produce can significantly reduce and make it affordable and accessible.

Validity of use

The study was instrumental in seeking ways in which fresh produce can be made accessible and affordable.

Amabipi, A. K. (2016). Understanding host community distrust and violence against oil companies in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1619572076?accountid=14872

Scope

The study explores the reasons behind community distrust and violence against oil companies in Nigeria via use interviews.

Purpose

The study seeks to gather comprehensive and contextual account of the causes of the said distrust and violence in addition to examining various elements that can be used to address the causes.

Philosophical Approach

The researcher uses sampling and survey approach to determine the root causes of distrust and violence that is experienced by oil companies in Nigeria.

Underlying Assumptions

Experiences of distrust and violence netted on oil companies will be communicated freely. (2) Authorities cannot control the distrust and violence on oil companies. (3) The experiences are not similar in all geographical areas. (4) Data collected is based on accurate responses. (6) Data collected is a representation of the host communities. (7) Study findings will provide peaceful management strategies. (8) Elements of social change spread from the affected villages to other communities. (9) Case study will portray the accurate story in reference to the host community and oil companies.

Research

The researcher used interviews to ascertain the root causes of community distrust and violence on oil companies.

Limitations

(1) The terrain impended access to various geographical locations. (2) Participants not giving accurate information. (3) Residents not willing to be interviewed.

Opportunities for further inquiry

The researcher deducted that if there is more transparency and coordination by the oil companies and the respective communities, the distrust would significantly reduce and the violence. Thus the researcher was of the view that there needs to be more studies to achieve this management practices.

Validity of use

The research was instrumental in determining the possible root causes of the said distrust and violence and the possible solutions.

The Role of Community Participation in Water Production and Management: Lessons

From Sustainable Aid in Africa International Sponsored Water Schemes in

Kisumu, Kenya

Erick Oniango Ananga

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in Geography and Environmental Science and Policy
School of Geosciences
College of Arts and Sciences
University of South Florida

Major Professor: Ambe Njoh, Ph.D.
Fenda Akiwumi, Ph.D.
Jennifer Collins, Ph.D.
Kamal Alsharif, Ph.D.
Hesborn Wao, Ph.D.
John Daly, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:
September 22, 2015

Keywords: urban-based water schemes, informal settlements, beneficiary satisfaction,
performance factors

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 – 1346
ProQuest 3733847
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest Number: 3733847

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother Wilfrida Wadede and father Charles Okolo
Ananga, who taught me the importance of higher education; to my wife Vivian, who has been
patient with the process and supported me wholeheartedly; to my daughter Zoe Wadede who
gave me a reason to get out of bed every morning and the urge to set a good example; and to
Eileen Annette Fisher who supported me and gave me a job while undertaking my undergraduate
and graduate studies in England.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my major adviser, Prof. Ambe J. Njoh for
helping me through this endeavor. He has been an inspiration to me. His teaching has motivated
me to love my continent and focus my research on water and sanitation issues in Africa. The
comments and corrections he made in this work, without doubt, have enhanced its quality. I
would also like to extend special thanks and appreciation to my supervising committee. Each
member of the committee provided invaluable support on this journey. Thank you, Dr. Fenda
Akiwumi for always listening to me and encouraging me to work hard and stick to the journey.
Thank you, Dr. Hesborn Wao for helping with the mixed methods section and ensuring the study
adhered to the scientific method. Thank you, Dr. Jennifer Collins, Dr. Kamal Alsharif and Dr.
John Daly for accepting to be on the committee and the faith and trust you have had in me. I
must stress that all the committee members have immensely helped me as a doctoral student here
at USF. I would not have done this without their support and encouragement.
I would also like to acknowledge the support provided by the following people: my best
friend Zuleika De Aguiar for reading, criticizing and adding value to all the work I completed as
a doctoral student in the United States; Sustainable Aid in Africa International for supporting my
data collection efforts; Women groups, water management committee members and water
consumer groups who participated in the focus group discussions; Carolyn Rivera for helping
with the office protocols; my brother George Ananga for helping fund part of this dissertation.

George was also very instrumental in introducing me to the academic world by going through
my undergraduate work while studying at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
My appreciation also goes to the School of Geosciences, USF, Dr. Kevin Archer, Dr.
Mark Hafen and Dr. Alfred Mbah. Dr. Archer introduced me to the Socratic teaching philosophy.
Dr. Hafen trained me on how to be an effective teacher and Dr. Mbah chaired the examining
committee. Overall, I have learnt a lot from the School of Geoscience. The teaching experience I
have gained will go a long way to help me establish a career in teaching and research.
Finally, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my wife Vivian who is the captain of the house.
I love you and thank you for listening to my constant complaints and demand for perfection in
everything we do.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv

LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vi

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vii

1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………………………………………………..6
1.2 Research Objectives and Questions …………………………………………………………………..15
1.3 The Study Setting – Kisumu Water Schemes ……………………………………………………..16
1.3.1 Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme (WWSP) ………………………………..19
1.3.2 Obunga Water and Sanitation Scheme (OWSP) …………………………………….20
1.3.3 Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS) …………………………………….21
1.3.4 Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme (PWSS) …………………………………………23
1.4 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………………………………26
1.5 Organization of Chapters …………………………………………………………………………………28

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE …………………………………………………………….30
2.1 Historical and Theoretical Foundation of Community Participation (CP) ………………30
2.1.1 Community Participation from the African Perspective ………………………….30
2.1.2 CP from the Western Perspective ………………………………………………………..33
2.1.3 CP from the Asian Perspective ……………………………………………………………34
2.1.4 Defining Community Participation ………………………………………………………36
2.1.5 Community Participation Indicators …………………………………………………….38
2.1.6 Key Studies on the Effects of CP in Water Provisioning ……………………….39
2.2 Gaps in the Literature ………………………………………………………………………………………49

3. METHODS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………52
3.1 Mixed Methods ………………………………………………………………………………………………54
3.2 Quantitative Phase – Data Source and Sampling …………………………………………………57
3.2.1 Surveys …………………………………………………………………………………………..57
3.2.2 Quantitative Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………61
3.3 Qualitative Phase – Data Source and Sampling …………………………………………………..62
3.3.1 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ……………………………………………………….62
3.3.2 Observation, Transect Walks and Photographic Evidence ………………………66
3.3.3 Qualitative Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………..66
3.4 Rationale for Using Mixed Methods………………………………………………………………….68
3.5 Selection Criteria for the Studied Schemes ………………………………………………………..70

ii
3.6 Data Quality Management Issues ……………………………………………………………………..72
3.6.1 Qualitative Data ………………………………………………………………………………..73
3.6.2 Quantitative Data ………………………………………………………………………………74
3.7 Ethical Consideration ………………………………………………………………………………………75

4. EMPIRICAL EFFECTS OF CP ON BENEFICIARY SATISFACTION WITH
THE WORK OF THE WATER SCHEMES’ MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES …………….77
4.1 Selected Sample Demographic Characteristics …………………………………………………..78
4.2 Description of Dependent and Independent Variables …………………………………………81
4.2.1 Beneficiary Satisfaction with the Work of the Management
Committee (DV) ……………………………………………………………………………………….81
4.2.2 Participation (IV) ………………………………………………………………………………82
4.3 The Models and Results …………………………………………………………………………………..84
4.3.1 Bivariate Logit Analysis …………………………………………………………………….85
4.3.2 Multivariate Logit Analysis ………………………………………………………………..86
4.4 Discussion of Findings …………………………………………………………………………………….90

5. EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CP AND THE PRODUCTION OF
CLEAN POTABLE WATER SUPPLY IN THE INFORMAL SETTLEMENT ………………95
5.1 Description of the Dependent and Independent Variables …………………………………..95
5.2 Results of the Relationship between Independent and Dependent Variables …………..96
5.3 Additional Tests – Logistic Regression ……………………………………………………………107
5.4 Discussion of Findings …………………………………………………………………………………..110

6. PARTICIPATION- RELATED FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFOMANCE
OF THE SCHEMES………………. ………………………………………………………………………….114
6.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….114
6.2 Contributing Factors to the Success of the Schemes ………………………………………….116
6.2.1 Networking and Collaboration ………………………………………………………….117
6.2.2 Continuous Community Engagement/Participation …………………………….119
6.2.3 The Formation of Water Consumer Groups ………………………………………..119
6.2.4 Coordination and Organizational Management ……………………………………123
6.2.5 Extent of Institutional Formalization ………………………………………………….124
6.2.6 Provision of Dividends to the Community ………………………………………….128
6.3 Impediments to the Schemes Success ………………………………………………………………128
6.3.1 Clanism …………………………………………………………………………………………129
6.3.2 Population Increase, Poverty and Community Fatigue ………………………….131
6.4 Discussion of Findings ………………………………………………………………………………….133

7. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….138 140
7.1 Contributions to literature. ……………………………………………………………………………..138
7.2 Study Limitation …………………………………………………………………………………………140
7.3 Avenues for Future Research ………………………………………………………………………….141

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….143

iii
APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL LETTER …………………………………………………………………….174

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY …………………………………………………………………176

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY …………………………………………………………………177

APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR WOMEN FOCUS GROUPS ……………188

APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR WATER MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE FOCUS GROUPS …………………………………………………………………………………..190

APPENDIX F: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR WATER CONSUMER
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSIONS……………………………………………………………………………………..192

APPENDIX G: INTRODUCTION SCRIPT AND QUESTIONING ROUTE FOR
WOMEN GROUPS FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ……………………………………………………..194

APPENDIX H: INTRODUCTION SCRIPT AND QUESTIONING ROUTE
FOR WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES FOCUS GROUP DISCUSIONS ……………..196

APPENDIX 1: INTRODUCTION SCRIPT AND QUESTIONING ROUTE FOR
WATER CONSUMER GROUP FOCUS GROUP DISCUSIONS ……………………………………..198

APPENDIX J: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR ALL FOCUS GROUP
DISCUSION PARTICIPANTS ……………………………………………………………………………………..200

ABOUT THE AUTHOR ……………………………………………………………………………………… End Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Summary of the Schemes Key Attributes …………………………………………………………..25

Table 2.1: Key Studies Evaluating the Effect of CP on Water Supply Projects ………………………41

Table 3.1: Summary of the Research Design Employed by the Study …………………………………..56

Table 3.2: Community Entry Procedure by the Research Team ……………………………………………60

Table 3.3: Information Matrix of the Focus Group Discussions …………………………………………..64

Table 3.4: Characteristics of the Focus Group Discussion Participants …………………………………65

Table 3.5: Summary of Selection Process of the Studied Water Schemes ……………………………..71

Table 4.1: Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Sampled Household …………………….79

Table 4.2: Household Main Source of Water……………………………………………………………………..81

Table 4.3: Household Responses to the Question “how satisfied are and your
household with the management work of the committee responsible for
managing your main source of water”……………………………………………………………….82

Table 4.4: Participatory Indicators Used in the Models ……………………………………………………….84

Table 4.5: Bivariate Logit Results for Beneficiary Satisfaction with the work of
the Management Committees as Function of Various Participatory
Variables (n = 317) …………………………………………………………………………………………88

Table 4.6: Multivariate Logit Results for Beneficiary Satisfaction with the work of the
Management Committees as a Function of Various Participatory Variables
(n = 317) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..89

Table 5.1: Relationship Between Household Satisfaction with the Smell of Water
(DV) and Main Water Source (IV) ………………………………………………………………….101

Table 5.2: Relationship Between Household Satisfaction with the Smell of Water
(DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV) ……………………………………………101

Table 5.3: Relationship Between Cleaning and Covering Water Storage Containers
(DV) and Main Source of Water (IV) ………………………………………………………………102

Table 5.4: Relationship Between Cleaning and Covering Water Storage Containers
(DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV) ……………………………………………102

Table 5.5: Relationship Between being Diagnosed with Water Borne Related Disease
(DV) and Main Source of Water (IV) ………………………………………………………………103

Table 5.6: Relationship Between Being Diagnosed with Water Borne Related Disease
(DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV) ……………………………………………103

Table 5.7: Relationship Between Willingness to Protect Areas around Water Points
from Contamination (DV) and Main Source of Water (IV) ………………………………..104

Table 5.8: Relationship Between Willingness to Protect Areas around Water Points
from Contamination (DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings …………………….104

Table 5.9: Relationship between Perception on Current Access to Water (DV) and
Main Source of Water (IV) …………………………………………………………………………….105

Table 5.10: Relationship between Perception on Current Access to Water (DV) and
Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV) ………………………………………………………….105

Table 5.11: Summary of the Empirical Results between CP and Household
Willingness to Practice Better Water Handling Hygiene in the Settlements ………….106

Table 5.12: Logit Results on Willingness to Practice Better Water Handling Hygiene
as a Function of Participation …………………………………………………………………………109

Table 6.1: Percentage of Respondents Positively Reviewing Water Reliability in their
Community since 2013 (n: 317) ……………………………………………………………………..116

Table 6.2: Percentage of Respondents who reported a Family member having
suffered from Water Borne Related Disease (n: 317) …………………………………………116

Table 6.3: Contributing Factors to the Success of the Schemes ………………………………………….120

Table 6.4: Factors which Impeded the Success of the Schemes ………………………………………….129

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Map of Study Area showing the Location of Water Points …………………………………17

Figure 1.2: Community Water Kiosks in Obunga Kisumu (Source: Author) …………………………18

Figure 1.3: Street in Obunga Kisumu (Source: Author) ………………………………………………………18

Figure 1.4: Wandiege Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author) …………………………………20

Figure 1.5: Obunga Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author) …………………………………….21

Figure 1.6: Asengo Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author) …………………………………….22

Figure 1.7: Paga Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author) …………………………………………23

Figure 6.1: Asengo Water Scheme Office (Source: Author) ……………………………………………..125

Figure 6.2: Wandiege Water Scheme Office (Source: Author) ………………………………………….126

Figure 6.3: Obunga Water Scheme Office (Source: Author) ……………………………………………..127

Figure 6.4: Focus Group Discussion Meeting at Paga water Scheme (Source: Author) ………..127

vii

ABSTRACT

Few studies have attempted to determine the tenability of Community Participation (CP)
theory is explicating Water Production and Management dynamics in Urban Informal
Settlements. Consequently, several gaps exist in knowledge of the value of this important theory
for efforts to improve water service delivery in such settlements. The main purpose of this study
is to contribute to efforts addressed to filling these gaps. Four water schemes established by
Sustainable Aid in Africa International in partnership with different communities in the informal
neighborhoods of Kisumu Kenya are used as empirical referent. The study is guided by the
following three Research Questions; 1) what is the relationship between community participation
and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water management committees in the four
schemes? 2) what are the contributions (positive or negative) of community participation on the
production of clean potable water supply in the informal settlements? 3) what are the
participation-related factors affecting the performance of the schemes?
Uncovering answers to these questions entailed the use of a mixed methods approach.
The approach involved the application of both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The
former was employed mainly to answer the first two Research Questions and latter to deal with
Research Question Three. The quantitative component of data collection involved administering
a survey questionnaire through a simple random sampling technique. Logistic Regression and
Chi-square Tests were employed to analyze the quantitative data. In the qualitative phase, Focus

viii
Group Discussions, Observation, Transect Walks and Photographic evidence was used to collect
data analyzed through Constant Comparison Analytic technique.
For Research Question One, the logistic regression results indicate that five participatory
variables are significantly associated with beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water
management committees. These are provision of paid or unpaid labor to the water schemes,
household willingness to intervene against pipe vandalism, meeting attendance, willingness to
contribute money or time to the community water scheme and whether a household has ever
made a complaint about water supply/quality issues. For Research Question Two, the chi-square
test shows that households who use community managed water schemes and attend water and
sanitation meetings tend to practice better water handing hygiene in the settlements. For
Research Question Three, the following factors are identified to be either aiding and/or impeding
the success of the schemes; networking and collaboration, continuous community
engagement/participation, the formation of water consumer groups, coordination and
organizational management, extent of institutional formalization, provision of dividends to the
community, clannism, population increase, and poverty and community fatigue.
This dissertation sheds new light on the role played by CP in managing vital resources
such as water in urban informal settlements/neighborhoods. An important policy contribution is
that CP can be used as a viable strategy in the establishment of effective water schemes in urban
informal settlements. Furthermore, it can act as an antidote with regards to water quality
improvements in urban informal settlements/neighborhoods.

1. INTRODUCTION

Global population increase continues to create new challenges on the management of
natural resources. Studies by Chitonge (2014), Hopewell and Graham (2014) and Gleick (2014)
suggest that in the coming years the challenge will be phenomenal in emerging cities in Africa. It
is projected that the urban population growth on the continent will double between 2000 and
2030 (Alabaster, 2010). The growth will be more pronounced in cities where the population is
below one million with the majority of the inhabitants living below the poverty line (Torres,
2012; Van der Bruggen et al, 2010). Three factors at the root of this unprecedented growth
include natural increase, reclassification of rural areas as urban centers, and most importantly,
rural-urban migration (Chitonge, 2014; Hardoy et al, 2014; Satterthwaite, 2014). The daunting
task facing local authorities is how to adequately supply clean potable water to the
predominantly poverty stricken urban dwellers (Bakker et al, 2008).
Experts have proposed varied management mechanisms targeted at improving access to
water in the developing world (Ghai et al 2014; Gleick, 2000; 2003; Mitchel, 2005; Pahl-Wostl,
2007; World Bank, 1993; 2004). The most notable among the suggested models is the demand-
responsive approach as opposed to the traditional supply driven interventions (Naiga et al, 2012;
Nicole, 2000; World Bank, 1998). The demand-responsive approach was popularized in Africa
in the 1990s by major development organizations such as the World Bank. The concept is
anchored in the idea of Community Participation (CP) which advocates greater beneficiary
involvement in water service production and management (Whittington et al, 2009). It includes

2
beneficiaries taking the initiative to demand improved water services while at the same time
taking a leading role in project design, implementation, development and sustainability. The
demand-responsive approach requires beneficiaries to own the system by constantly making
meaningful contributions either in the form of cash or labor to community-based water projects
(Sara & Katz, 1998). It is premised on the belief that such involvement ultimately leads to better
designed projects, better targeted benefits and more cost-effective and timely delivery of water.
Most significantly, CP is seen as effective in terms of equitable distribution of water and in
curtailing corruption and other rent-seeking activities (Asian Development Bank, 1998; DFID,
2000; World Water Forum, 2000).
Several water projects in rural villages in Africa and Asia have been established based on
the demand-responsive model with the following studies heralding its success (Engel,
Iskandarani & Useche, 2005; Cleaver, 1996; Isham & Kahkonen, 2002; Isham, Narayan &
Pritchett, 1994; Kleemeier, 1995; 1998; 2000; Manikutty, 1995a; 1995b; 1997; Narayan, 1995;
Prokopy, 2004; 2005; 2009; Russ & Takahashi, 2013). Few studies have attempted to determine
the tenability of CP theory in explicating water production and management dynamics in urban
informal settlements. Consequently, several gaps exist in knowledge of the value of this all-
important theory for efforts to improve water service delivery in such settlements. The main
purpose of this study is to contribute to efforts addressed to filling these gaps. It accomplishes
this objective mainly by exploring and evaluating the effectiveness of CP theory in water
production and management in urban informal settlements/neighborhoods. Specifically, the
study examines the nature and role of CP in water service delivery in urban informal
settlements/neighborhoods in the city of Kisumu, Kenya. Four water schemes established and

3
funded by Sustainable Aid in Africa International (SANA), in partnership with different
communities in the informal settlement of Kisumu, are examined.
SANA is a non-governmental organization (NGO) located in Kisumu. The organization
was established from the Kenyan Rural Domestic Water Supply and Sanitation Program in 2003.
The mission of SANA is to contribute to the improvement of access to safe water and proper
sanitation for people through the promotion of CP and sustainable technologies. SANA has four
main objectives: (1) To promote and be actively engaged in the provision of urban water supplies
and environmental sanitation; (2) To train communities on current health related techniques and
assist them in capacity building for water sustainability at the community level; (3) To promote
overall natural resource management with emphasis on environmental concerns at the
community level; and (4) To mobilize and distribute funds and other resources for the promotion
of water, health and sanitation issues.
Currently, through the use of participatory techniques, SANA has established and funded
several water schemes in Kisumu. This study focuses on examining four schemes. These are
Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme (WWSP), Obunga Water and Sanitation Scheme
(OWSP), Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS), and Paga Water and Sanitation
Scheme (PWSS). The four water schemes offer a rare opportunity for examining the tenability of
CP theory in explicating water production and management dynamics in urban informal
settlements/neighborhoods.
Before proceeding it is important and necessary to provide a brief definition of three
important terms used throughout this study. These are Urban Informal Settlement
/Neighborhoods, Water Production and Water Management. There are several definitions for the
term urban informal settlements. The most prominent of these include unplanned settlements,

4
squatter settlements, marginal settlements, unconventional dwellings, non-permanent structures,
inadequate housing and slums (Hofmann et al 2008; Huchzermeyer & Karam, 2006;
Huchzermeyer, 2004). This study adopts the definition advanced by the United Nations (UN).
According to the UN (e.g. 2007), informal settlements/neighborhoods are settlements having the
following characteristics: (1) lack structured planning, (2) has an informal or insecure property
tenure, (3) has limited participation in government activities which leads to inadequate service
provisioning, and (4) has a vulnerability to discrimination for the residents. This definition is
considered apropos for the present study because it encapsulates most of the essential
characteristics of informal settlements. The first two characteristics are based on the physical
and/or the rule of law constraints, while the third and fourth fall under the social constraints
domain. The four schemes used as empirical referents in this study are located in places which
according to the UN definition would be considered as informal settlements.
Equally important are the terms, Water Management and Water Production. Water
management can be considered as an essential component of water production. Generally,
prudent water management techniques has shown to be beneficial to society in regards to
ensuring efficiency, maximizing equity and reducing environmental damage through the
promotion of greater public participation (Brooks, 2006). Unfortunately, a lack of clarity in the
definition of the two terms still remains in existing literature. Water production simply refers to
activities and processes involved in making water available and suitable for human
use/consumption. On the same token, water management can be considered a part of water
production; however, it is a concept which often becomes significant after water is produced.
That is, after all the processes needed to make water available or run through the taps have been
achieved. According to Brooks (2002), water management involves activities or actions geared

5
towards getting the most from the produced water. Deverill (2001) called these actions practical
strategies which are targeted at improving efficiency, distributional equity and sustainable use of
water. Savenjie & van der Zaag (2002) defined water management as the development and
implementation of mechanisms aimed at managing water demands. The outcome is to ensure
efficient and sustainable use of water as a scarce resource.
Brook (2006) goes further in providing a well thought definition of what the term water
management ought to be. He asserts that water management should reflect a series of steps that
bring water from source to use. Thus, water management can be viewed within the prism of any
method, whether technical, economic, administrative, financial or social that will accomplish one
or more of the following four items. (1) Managing the quantity or improving the quality of water
needed in accomplishing a particular task. (2) Reducing the loss in quantity or quality of water as
it flows from its source through use to eventual disposal. (3) Shifting the timing of use from peak
hours to off peak periods for purposes of making water more equitable. (4) Increasing the ability
of the water system to continue to serve society during times when water is limited. Along the
same vein, Crigg (1996, pg. 6) compared water management to the art of building a house. Crigg
asserted that before building a house we need policies, plans, specifications, codes, materials,
builders with specific skills and buyers. As building a house has a set of rules, water
management also has a set of rules. However, they are more complex than building a house. This
is because it involves policies and plans for guidance, rules and codes, materials for construction
and operation, teamwork, skills, customers and water users. It is a complex and multifaceted
undertaking.
From these definitions it is apparent that the term water management and water
production are intertwined. It will be impossible to pick one away from the other. Overall, we

6
can think about water production and management both in terms of technology and policy
(Brook, 2006). These may include issues such as piping, tap installation, chlorination, pricing,
managing expectations, balancing losses and even human emotional issues which might be
related to water. Ultimately, this is where citizen participation becomes an essential element in
water production and management.
As correctly argued by Crigg (1996) in this century managing water resources requires
skills and approaches that goes beyond pure engineering, science, management or law. To ensure
efficiency, equity, and sustainable use of water citizen participation is necessary especially in
developing countries and specifically in cities such as Kisumu where water is considered a scarce
resource. Word Health Organization and Unicef (2006) estimated that in Sub-Saharan Africa
between the year 1990-2004, the number of people without access to clean potable water
increased by 23 percent. At the same time, the region experienced 85% increase in its urban
population with the majority of people having no access to safe drinking water (Ibid). The focus
of this study is to examine the role which citizens can play in water production and management
in urban informal settlements and specifically in Kisumu, Kenya.
The study contains seven chapters. This introductory chapter progresses in the following
order. The next section discusses the broader theoretical framework within which this study is
situated. Following this is a presentation of the study objectives, research questions, study area,
and its significance in environmental policy and planning. It ends with an outline of the
remaining six chapters.
1.1 Theoretical Framework
The management of water resources in the developing world has traditionally been
considered as a government responsibility in accordance with the supply driven model (Lane,

7
2006). Advocates of state-controlled strategies argue that access to water is a human right and
that it is the state’s obligation to ensure its access to the public (Gleick, 1994; Prasad, 2006;
Scanlon, Cassar & Nemes, 2004; Trawick, 2003). More significantly, because of the huge capital
investment required in water supply services, proponents believe that only the state has the
capacity to guarantee its equitable distribution especially in poor neighborhoods. In fact, state-
control advocates stress that water should never be treated primarily as a commodity based on
the market principles. This is because markets are purely driven by profit motives (Prasad,
2006). Overall, such arguments imply that the state has the capacity and duty to provide water
services to everyone (Johnston, Gismondi & Goodman, 2006; Laxer & Soron, 2006). In this
scenario, the state, through municipalities, therefore assumes full responsibility in the production
and management of water resources. This has historically been the case in most developing
countries. A few specific cases include the Kenya Water Resources Management Authority and
the Cameroon National Water Company (Fongong et al, 2004), and the Ghana Water and
Sewerage Corporation before the establishment of the community co-management models
(Fuest, 2005).
In the mid-1980s, water supply systems in many developing countries began
experiencing major problems with regards to quality, reliability, and coverage (Irwin, 1997;
McIntosh, 1997). These problems arose due to the failure by most states in meeting their
obligations (Panayotou, 1997). Several studies reported that local and national governments were
reluctant to invest in improving water infrastructure (Bayliss, 2003; Bakker et al, 2008; Bakker,
2010). Customer care was poor and taps continued to dry up due to spillage and wastage
especially in poor neighborhoods (Savedoff & Spiller, 1999). The situation became worse and
untenable by the early 1990s when most states failed to offer viable solutions to these problems.

8
Under such circumstances policy makers begun to prescribe a series of reforms with the most
notable one being privatization of the water sector (Prasad, 2007).
Private sector participation, although controversial, became fashionable as an alternative
strategy for managing water resources in the developing world in the early 1990s (McGranahan
& Mulenga, 2009). This was after the complete failure of supply-driven interventions
popularized by the state. It was argued that privatization would expand service coverage to the
poor, bring in the needed investment, relieve government from the problems of budget deficits,
and most importantly, lead to improvements in efficiency and performance by reducing red tape
(Cross & Morel, 2005; Davis, 2005; Kerf et al, 1996; Naegele, 2004; Shirley, 2002; UN DESA,
2004). Indeed, the ideological arguments in favor of privatization of the water service delivery in
the developing world were backed by empirical evidence. The most prolific amongst the studies
undertaken on water privatization debate was completed by Estache and Rossi (1999). This study
focused on urban centers in the Asian countries. By using a 1995 survey data assembled by the
Asian Development Bank, the study compared the performance of private water and public water
utilities. The variables of interest were productivity indicators operationalized as simple input-
output relations (e.g. the number of workers per client or connections). A stochastic cost frontier
method was employed to analyze the data. Results from the study showed that privately-operated
water utilities were more efficient than those which were publicly managed.
Another significant study by Estache and Kouassi (2002) analyzed outcomes in water
service delivery in African countries where privatization had taken root as an optional
government policy. Based on panel data sampled from 121 different African water utilities
between 1995 and 1997 and using stochastic and parametric frontiers technique, the study found
that private ownership was associated with a lower inefficiency score than publicly run water

9
utilities. The inefficiency of public water utilities was exemplified by among other things, the
rate of corruption existing in government institutions. Other noteworthy studies which have
shown that private water utilities perform better than publicly owned utilities include Clark
Kosec & Wallsten, 2004; Kirkpatrick et al, 2004; Shirley & Menard, 2002; and the World Bank,
2004.
However, contrary to the foregoing positive findings are studies which show that
privatization has no effect on efficiency, productivity or improvement of water access in poor
neighborhoods. For instance, Clarke and Wallsten (2002) found that while private sector
participation in water service delivery leads to more supplies to poorer households, there may be
offsetting service difficulties and higher charges when supplies are privatized. Similarly, an
empirical study by Bayliss (2002) reported that privatization created negative impacts on the
poor in terms of job losses, decreased earnings, and reduced access to services. Birdsall and
Nellis (2003) found that privatization resulted in income disparity between people thus
expanding the inequality gap between the rich and the poor. A case in Puerto Rico, as reported
by Interpress (1999), deserves mention here. According to Interpress, a state-run water
management system completely collapsed immediately after a privatized French multinational
company, Vivendi, took over. With Vivendi as the managing authority, an audit by Interpress
found that there were deficiencies in management and repairs, financial reporting, addressing
consumer concerns, and water service billing and record-keeping. In an extensive review of
water utility ownership, Braadbaart (2002), found that privately-owned utilities were not more
efficient than their publicly-run counterparts.
The point here is that each side in the debate between privatization versus state delivery
of water supply services presents a passionate argument. Empirical research conducted on the

10
two approaches is inconsistent depending on the type of study or data researchers prefer to
review. It is also important to restate that the two approaches are tethered on the traditional
supply-driven intervention model, which has a somewhat limited role for public participation.
There is a third approach which has been entertained in the water service delivery sector.
This approach, also known as the demand responsive approach calls for CP in water resource
management. Proponents of this approach argue that it can be used as an alternative strategy in
improving water access to the poor. This study focuses mainly on this topic. That is, the demand-
responsive approach subsumed under the CP ideology as an alternative approach in water
resource production and management.
The ideological reasoning behind the acceptance of CP theory in development planning is
varied (Harvey and Reed, 2007). In Africa the idea gained currency in the 1960s and specifically
in the donor funded projects (Wood, 2003). However, as Njoh (2003) and Svendsen and Teisen
(1969) have argued, participation had long been practiced in pre-colonial Africa where it was
common to see community members working together for the purpose of executing local
development projects. In Tanzania, as noted by Svendsen et al. (1969), communities collectively
engaged in activities such as building schools, roads and community village health posts using
their own labor and materials. Similarly, in Kenya under the presidency of Jomo Kenyatta and
leadership of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, communities in the spirit of participation coined a
Kiswahili term, Harambee, meaning pulling together for purposes of development (Smith, 1992).
The same is documented in South Africa prior to the European colonization era where chiefs
were required to solicit community views before exercising their powers (Mansuri &Rao,
2013).To this Njoh (2003) added, colonial authorities working in Africa had no alternative but to
incorporate CP as a component of their development planning agenda. In fact as further

11
articulated by Njoh (2006; 2010), two factors remain to account for the significance of CP in
Africa tradition and ethos. The first is its contextual relevance in maximizing utility of scare
resources like water or land. The second, Njoh argues is its compatibility with the democratic
principles, a concept widely practiced in the African continent before the arrival of the
Europeans.
Several factors have contributed to the recognition of CP as a major tool for success in
different development projects especially in the water service sector in Africa (DFID, 2006). The
World Bank lists some of the reasons why they promote CP in their projects (Lamb, Varettoni
and Shen, 2005). First, it is recognized that national and local governments have failed to
effectively manage development projects and programs under their charge. The second is based
on the notion that development workers have a moral obligation to listen to the needs of the
beneficiaries. Third is the litany of empirical evidence showing positive outcomes for projects
where CP techniques have been administered. Finally, CP is seen to be effective in terms of
inclusion. In Africa, women overwhelmingly bear the burden of water collection (Kehler, 2013).
Despite this, their voices are often excluded in the decision-making processes which in fact
render them as passive actors in the development process. The process of exclusion does not only
end with women but extends to the chronically poor who are often viewed as short term
maximizers of utilities. In this respect, participation provides an avenue for such groups to
express their opinions, experiences or desires (Bhasin, 1985; Chambers, 1983; Fals-Borda, 1988;
Rahman, 1987).
Besides, arguments presented by the World Bank, there are other reasons validating the
use of CP as an alternative strategy in water production and management. Most prominent
among them, according to McCommon et al (1990), is the spillover effects on other development

12
sectors within the community. These include benefits such as improved health care facilities,
recovery of financial costs or potential financial savings. Mansuri and Rao (2004) argue that,
participation leads to an empowered beneficiary community who are better trained in managing
more complex community services. Thus, the new skills gained by the community through
training will prepare them for participating in other sectorial development activities.
Additionally, the experiences acquired in such trainings increases the community’s power over
local issues thus creating a domino effect on other development initiatives. Carter et al (1999)
reinforces this point, by arguing that the concept of participation was embraced especially by
governments unable to deliver or maintain services to the people. Such governments used the
success of participation in development projects as an opportunity to relinquish their
responsibility of managing public services.
According to Bakker (2008), a significant factor which brought forth the application of
CP in water production and management was the failure of privatization. He asserts that by the
mid-2000s, it had become clear that water privatization initiatives were failing to achieve some
of their declared objectives. This was more visible in poor neighborhoods where the private
sector was reluctant to invest. In fact, field studies in mid-2000 indicated that despite the huge
amount of resources ploughed into the privatization agenda, water access in poor neighborhoods
was deteriorating (Byliss & Fine, 2007; Hukka & Katko, 2003; McDonald & Ruiters, 2005).
Furthermore, most of the large multinational organizations which had embraced the privatization
bandwagon begun to withdraw from the contracts they had earlier committed themselves to. In
order to mitigate such problems, Bakker (2008) contends that participation had to be
reintroduced as a viable tool in solving the quagmire. Bakker’s argument has been advanced
further in a seminal review by Mansuri and Rao (2013) titled Localizing Development- Does

13
Participation work. In this work, the two scholars argue that participation has become popular
because it has provided what the market/the state had failed to achieve. That is, (1) aligning
development priorities with those that reflected beneficiaries’ goals; (2) promoting dialogue
between beneficiaries and their development partners; and (3) expanding resources which were
not previously accessible to the poor. Most importantly, participation as theorized by Mansuri et
al. (2013) or Chambers (1997) is seen as being helpful in checking elite preferences and
replacing them with the desires of the poor.
It is worth noting here that Mansuri’s and Rao’s arguments on the power of CP are
intertwined with those advocated by the decentralization advocates (see, e.g., Adamolekun,
1991; Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Anderson & Ostrom, 2008; Crook & Manor, 1998; WRI, 2003).
Generally, proponents of the decentralization scholarship promote it on the basis that it reduces
the gap between the government and the people thus creating an avenue for audit. In a
decentralized government, just like in a perfectly operated community water project, the citizens
are able and are allowed to voice their preferences and needs to the overseeing authority. They
are also able to monitor performance, and in so doing, improve transparency and accountability
within the system. Enhanced accountability thus translates to improved service delivery to the
poor and the marginalized. A similar observation was made in a well-argued essay by
McGranahan and Mulenga (2009). They posit that the process of participation is central in
making markets or governments to work better for the people.
The theory of CP as an alternative approach in development planning is, however, not
shared by everybody. Abraham and Platteau (2004) warn that on the basis of power structures
which exist in paternalistic societies, the process of participation may be inherently subject to
elite capture. Mansuri and Rao (2004) extend this observation by noting that the exercise of

14
voice and choice as advocated in participatory development may add some costs to the poor. In
other words, the process of participation may involve financial losses due to the productive time
it takes away from the poor. Fuest (2005) criticized participation based on the ground that it is an
additional burden on the poor to require them to pay users’ fee for water. Atempurgre (1997),
Gary (1996), and Ioris (2007) contented that just like privatization theory, CP is probably a
reflection of the far-fetched neo-liberal Western ideas being exposed through the Bretton Woods
institutions on the vulnerable. Parfitt (2004) puts it vividly that, participation is simply another
seductive method used by development agencies to pursue top down development agendas. This
is the same argument that was advanced by Hickey and Mohan (2004). They noted that at times
the process of participation may mutate with existing power structures and political systems thus
further disenfranchising the poor.
Others like Burkey (1993), Oakley and Mardsen (1984), and Stiefel and Wolfe (1994)
saw participation as a technocratic and paternalistic activity designed to manage natives as
objects or as unpaid hands in self-help schemes. Indeed, in such schemes the roles allocated to
natives, they contend, is often manual and minimal. Locals hardly make decisions and any
involvement serves as a means of indoctrinating them into the values and priorities of the
bureaucrats. More precisely in the African context, Larson and Ribot (2004) drew attention to the
problem of distributional inequality. Participation through elected or traditional authorities is the
same as modern day colonial indirect rule.
Nagle (1992) and Mosse (2002) have advanced some of the strongest empirically-
supported criticisms against participation. In a study of USAID water projects, Nagle found that
the promotion of CP techniques may lead to an increase in management and administrative staff.
This was because organized communities were only happy to interact with staff who were

15
considered high within the management strata. Along the same vein, Mosse found that
participatory exercises are mostly public events and are open ended regarding target groups.
Because of this, they are inherently political and reflect local relations of power and gender.
Despite of the aforementioned criticisms, the concept of CP has been widely used in
establishing rural water schemes in Africa. Yet, it is also accurate to assert that CP’s quantitative
effects remains to be thoroughly researched or documented in African urban space. In fact, very
little attention has been given to monitoring and evaluating community-operated urban water
schemes located in informal settlements. More priority has been accorded to research on public
versus private provisioning of water supply services or the effects of CP in rural water supply
systems. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring and evaluating the tenability of
community participation theory in explicating water production and management dynamics in
urban informal settlements.
1.2 Research Objectives and Questions
The primary task in this study is to examine the nature and role of CP theory in water
service delivery in urban informal settlements. Four water schemes established by SANA in
partnership with different communities in Kisumu informal settlements are examined. The study
seeks to attain the following three specific objectives which are guided by three research
questions.
Objectives
1. To examine the relationship between CP and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the
water management committees in the four schemes established by SANA.
2. To evaluate the contribution (positive or negative) of CP on the production of clean water
supply in informal settlements in Kisumu.

16
3. To evaluate the participation-related factors affecting the performance of the schemes.
Research Questions
1. What are the relationship between CP and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water
management committees in the four schemes?
2. What are the contributions (positive or negative) of CP on the production of clean potable
water supply in the informal settlements?
3. What are the participation-related factors affecting the performance of the schemes?
The responses to these questions are guided by the following hypotheses which hinge on
well-established knowledge on the theory of CP in development planning.
H1 CP will lead to increased beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water management
committees.
H2 Households participating in water meetings and relying on community managed water
schemes will tend to practice better water handling hygiene than households who do not.
H3 There are several participation-related factors which may affect the performance of
urban-based community operated water schemes.
1.3 The Study Setting – Kisumu Water Schemes
The four water schemes examined in this study are located in informal settlements in
Kisumu, Kenya (Figure 1.1). The city of Kisumu is situated in western Kenya, adjacent to Lake
Vitoria, the second largest fresh water lake in the world. Its proximity to this large body of
freshwater notwithstanding, Kisumu faces significant water shortage problems. Yet, water is not
the city’s only problem. It faces problems arising from poor town planning (Kisumu City
Development Strategies 2004-2009). This problem is more acute in the informal areas of the city.
Here, more than anywhere else in the city, buildings are congested with heaps of garbage and

17
streams of raw sewage flowing along narrow alleyways (Figure 1.2 & 1.3). Approximately 75
percent of informal settlement residents live in temporary and semi-permanent structures
(Maulidi, 2012).

Figure 1.1 Map of Study Area Showing the Location of Water Points
The water problem in Kisumu presents a unique challenge. According to a report by the
Kisumu City Development Plan (2014), tap water service is irregular in the informal settlements.
Consequently, most residents depend on water vendors, nearby rivers and water from private
boreholes to meet their fresh water needs (Otieno, 2013; Owuor et al, 2012). These alternative
freshwater sources present significant health risks. They are poorly planned and are often located
close to known agents of ground water pollution such as pit latrines. In fact, the frequent
outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid in Kisumu are arguably a function
of the city’s poorly planned water supply system (Maoulidi, 2011).

Figure 1.2 Community Water Kiosks in Obunga Kisumu (Source: Author)

Figure 1.3 Street in Obunga Kisumu (Source: Author)

19
Over the years, there have been many, sometimes disparate initiatives aimed at
addressing the city’s water problematic. During the last ten years SANA has played a leading
role in this regard. It has worked with communities in Kisumu on various water schemes.
Serving mainly in a funding and technical capacity, SANA’s aim has been to improve water
service delivery. Sustainable Aid in Africa International (SANA) has funded four water schemes
in the city. The four schemes are: (1) Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme, (2) Obunga Water
and Sanitation Scheme, (3) Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme and, (4) Paga Water and
Sanitation scheme. This study primarily focuses on examining the effectiveness of these schemes
which were established under the auspices of CP. The hope of SANA was that the schemes if
properly managed by the communities would reduce the burdens of acute water shortages in the
informal settlements. A description of each scheme is in order.
1.3.1 Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme (WWSP)
Initiated in 2001, the Wandiege Water and Sanitation (WWSP) is a community based and
operated water scheme in the informal settlement of Manyatta in Kisumu (Figure 1.4). It was
established as a community self-help group with support from SANA and the local community to
meet the potable water needs of its members. The community donated land and identified areas
where the water kiosks were to be constructed. They also provided labor and money for the
piping network. The water kiosks are operated and managed by democratically elected
community members. On its part, SANA furnished the necessary funds and technical know-how.
The scheme’s mission was to improve access to safe water and better sanitation for the areas
residents.
Currently it serves a population of 15,000. Prominent among its assets are a water system
consisting of a borehole with a depth of 110 meters, a pumping station, a tower with two storage

20
tanks of 10,000 liters each, a pipeline system of 10 kilometers, 24 water kiosks, 148 metered
connections, a chlorine dozer for water treatment and an office building (SANA, 2014).

Figure 1.4 Wandiege Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author)
1.3.2 Obunga Water and Sanitation Scheme (OWSP)
Established in 2003, the Obunga Water and Sanitation Project (OWSP) is also a
community operated scheme (Figure 1.5). It was initiated under the Kenyan Government Water
Reform Act of 2002. The Act accorded autonomous companies the responsibility of providing
water and sanitation services in urban areas. However, it gave them a list of principles to abide
by which included considering water both as a social and an economic good. In this spirit, the
Kisumu Water and Sewerage Company (KIWASCO) collaborated with SANA to implement a
community water management model in Obunga. The model known as the delegated

21
management model (DML) involves selling water to the community in bulk at a subsidized
price. In turn, beneficiaries are responsible for pipe layout and repairs, tariff collection, policing
of pipes and revenue submission to KIWASCO. Presently OWSP serves a population of 30,000.
Its assets include three water storage tanks, 60 water points and several water kiosks.

Figure 1.5 Obunga Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author)
1.3.3 Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS)
Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS) is a part-gravity and part-diesel operated
scheme located in the north of Kisumu (Figure 1.6). It was established in 2005 as a joint venture
between SANA and the community. Specifically, SANA provided the initial financial support
for upgrading the spring water which the community previously relied on. They also provided

22
the necessary technical support. The community provided labor, land and furthermore identified
construction locations for the intake tanks. What makes this project unique is that the initial
financial assistance of $40,000 USD from SANA was advanced to the community as a soft loan.
The community has been able to steadily repay the loan.

Figure 1.6 Asengo Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author)

Today the scheme is under the direct management of a community elected board of
trustees. Its assets include two intake tanks and six water kiosks. It serves a population of over
20000 members (SANA, 2014).

23
1.3.4 Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme (PWSS)
Located on the western side of Kisumu, the Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme (PWSS)
was established in 1989 (Figure 1.7). The original funding for the scheme was sourced from the
Kenyan Government under the Kisumu City Slums and Peri-Urban Poverty Alleviation Program.
Initially, the funds were used to build a 10,000 liter tank, a 3 kilometer pipe line and to purchase
a diesel pump intended for pumping water from Lake Victoria to the feeder tank. The scheme
served the community for two years until the diesel pump was stolen resulting in the project’s
interruption in 1992.

Figure 1.7 Paga Water Scheme Service Areas (Source: Author)

In partnership with SANA, the community revived the project in 2007 and today is serves
a population of 17000 people. The role played by the community’s members in reviving the

24
project was phenomenal. They identified the need for clean water, donated land, contributed
labor and most importantly created an enabling environment for the project to restart. SANA
augmented the community’s effort by injecting funds and technical support. Currently, the
scheme’s assets consist of a 75,000-liter water tank, a12-kilometer pipe line, three water kiosks
and several stand pipes.
As the foregoing narrative suggests, each of the four water schemes is unique. Together,
they offer almost a laboratory-like environment for a study on the nature and role of CP theory in
water service delivery in urban informal settlements. All four schemes are located in urban
informal settlements/neighborhoods where the inhabitants lacked decent water supply and
sanitation services. As shown in figure 1.2 and 1.3, sanitation is poor in the location of the four
schemes. This is due to poor planning and water logging often experienced during the rainy
seasons. Lastly all the four schemes are community-operated and were all established with strong
elements of participation and SANA playing a central role in this process. Table 1.1 presents a
summary of the schemes’ key attributes.
The research methodology adopted for the study consists of three segments. (1)
Administering a household questionnaire survey to a randomly selected representative sample of
community members of the four schemes. (2) Conducting focus group discussions with
beneficiaries and the management teams of the four water schemes. And (3) making use of field
notes, transect walks and personal observation to supplement the data collected.
The purpose of the survey was to gather quantified information for answering Research
Questions One and Two. The qualitative segment of the methodology helped in addressing
Research Question Three.

25
Table 1.1 Summary of the Schemes Key Attributes
Attributes Wandiege

Obunga Asengo Paga
Year started

2001 2003 2005 1989
Role played by
the community

1. Donated land
2. Identified
locations for
water kiosks

1. Management of water kiosks
2. Identified locations for water
kiosks
3. Provide security to the
schemes assets
1. Provided labor and
land
2. Identified sites for
the intake tanks
1. Identified the need to clean
potable water
2. Donated land and labor

Role played by
SANA

Provided funds and
technical know how
1. Provided funds and technical
support
2. Sourced for collaboration
between the community and
Kisumu Water and Sewerage
Company
1. Provided funds for
upgrading the
spring water
2. Provided technical
support
1. Provided Funds
2. Provided Technical
support
Population
served in 2014
15,000 people 30,000 people 20,000 people 17,000 people

Schemes
Assets

 A borehole
 Two storage
tanks
 A pipe line
system
 24 water kiosks
 148 metered
connections
 Chlorine dozer
 Three water storage tanks
 60 water points
 10 water kiosks
 Several individual water
connections
 2 intake tanks
 6 water kiosks
 Several individual
water connections
 75,000 liter water tank
 12 kilometer pipe line
 3 water kiosks
 Several stand pipes

26
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study seeks to fill a gap in Knowledge on the role of CP in water service delivery in
developing countries in Africa in general and Kenya in particular. Despite evidence of success of
CP in rural water production and management, few studies have attempted to evaluate its
effectiveness in urban water delivery especially in the informal settlements. In fact, evidence on
monitoring and evaluation is very scarce. The water management model which has been
promoted in urban centers is privatization. However, in Africa, privatization has failed to achieve
the benefits previously lauded especially for the poor who most often live in urban informal
settlements. It is worth noting that informal settlements account for roughly 30 to 60 percent of
the urban population (Uitto and Biswas, 2000; UNCHS, 2006). Those who live in these
settlements are poor and most governments or private companies give lower priorities to issues
affecting them. Indeed, in terms of water delivery and planning, the settlements are congested
making it almost impossible to provide in house water or basic sanitation facilities. For these
reasons and coupled with the neoliberal notion of cost recovery, urban planners and private
companies have been hesitant to invest in slum-based water infrastructure. Consequently,
millions of people are denied access to clean potable water. Specifically for Kenya, the available
data from UN-Habitat (2005) reported that over 50% of those living in slums have no access to
drinking water.
The study is also important from an environmental policy and urban planning
perspective. In this regard, it showcases the role of communities in managing vital resources
such as water. Participation reduces wastage and encourages better water handling hygiene. As
articulated by Hardoy and Ruete (2013), the installation of more water infrastructure alone is not

27
enough. Complex urban environmental problems need more community involvement in order to
support the structural and non-structural interventions.
In addition, the study is important from economic and development perspectives. To
appreciate this, consider the fact that one of the greatest challenges still facing developing
countries is how to finance the Millennium Development Goals (MGDs) in regards to water
provisioning. According to Banerrjee and Morella (2011), the price tag for reaching the MDG
target on water access is estimated at $22.6 billion per year. This equals 3.5 percent of Africa’s
gross domestic product (GDP). The money needed for operation and maintenance alone stands at
1.1 percent of Africa’s overall GDP. The findings of this study are potentially useful in
demonstrating, the value of incorporating CP in the water delivery process in poor communities.
In addition an argument can be made that economic growth is intertwined with access to water.
In other words, industries and people living in cities like Kisumu require water. As shown in
Chapter Four, access, reliability and the effectiveness of the water infrastructure can be greatly
improved through CP mechanisms.
Furthermore, the study is significant from a public health perspective. Unsafe water and
poor sanitation are major causes of disease worldwide. According to a report by UN-Habitat
(2012), over half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied by people suffering from illnesses
associated with contaminated water and currently more people die as a result of polluted water
than are killed by all forms of violence including wars. In a recent study, Norton (2014) observed
that every year lack of adequate drinking water and poor sanitation causes 5 to 10 million deaths.
At least 1.6 million of the victims are children under the age of five years with most of them
living in the developing world. Chapter Six demonstrates that CP is an antidote for better
hygiene in water handling. Finally, findings from this study confirm the need for policymakers to

28
incorporate CP in urban water management in informal settlements. As persuasively argued by
Koundouri (2004), water scarcity whether quantitative, qualitative or both, simply emanates from
users inefficiency and poor management. The contribution of physical constraints is marginal
and the crisis lies mostly at the heart of inefficient management (ibid). Water problems can be
ameliorated if policy makers communicate clearly and develop working partnership with the
poor. Indeed, they need to take into account the views and perceptions of the poor.
1.5 Organization of Chapters
This study is divided into seven chapters. Chapter One begins with an introduction and
overview of the theoretical framework for the entire study. Also included in the chapter are study
objectives, research questions, description of the study area and significance of the study in
reference to environmental policy and planning. In Chapter Two, a review of the related
literature is presented. The central issues raised in the review are the historical and theoretical
roots on the definition of CP theory, indicators used in ascertaining participation, key studies
which have examined the impacts of CP in water provisioning and management. The chapter
concludes by highlights of gap in literature which the research hopes to fill. Chapter Three
contains a presentation of the methodological issues. These include a definition of the mixed
methods approach, the rationale for adopting the approach, potential shortfalls and how they are
addressed.
Chapter Four presents findings on the relationship between participation and beneficiary
satisfaction with the work of the management committees which can be used as a reflection for
sustainability. Chapter Five presents findings on the relationship between participation and clean
water supply in the settlements. Chapter Six presents findings on the major participation-related

29
factors influencing the performance of the schemes. Finally, Chapter Seven consists of general
conclusions, contribution to literature, study limitation and suggestions for future research.

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

This dissertation is intended to contribute to the broader research on community
participation (CP) in water production and management in developing countries. The goal in this
chapter is three-fold. The first is to trace the roots and theoretical foundation of the concept of
CP. The second is to highlight indicators which have been used to measure CP in development
projects. The third is to survey some key empirical studies which have examined the effects of
CP in water service delivery. The gap in literature that provides the rationale for this inquiry is
discussed in the conclusion.
2.1 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Community Participation (CP)
The history and debates that surrounds CP theory in development planning are long and
theoretically unique. Mansuri and Roa (2013) confirm this by suggesting that the origin of CP,
alternatively referred to in literature as “public participation,” “community- driven
development,” or “citizen participation”, is as old as the idea of democratic governance. More
worthy of note, CP has existed and evolved in many cultures over the years.
2.1.1 Community Participation from the African Perspective
In Africa, Njoh (2003) contends that participation had long been practiced by the
indigenous communities before the arrival of the Europeans. Specifically, in a book titled Self-
help water supply in Cameroon, Njoh stated that in precolonial Africa, it was common for
communities to join hands in local development projects. Such projects included building chiefs’
palaces, market centers, erecting village bridges, or building community centers. In some cases

31
the partnerships extended in carrying out duties such as hunting or slaughtering of animals for
communal consumption. Additionally during planting and cultivation seasons, communities in
Africa used to work alternately in each other’s farms. These activities have since continued and
currently operate alongside modern institutions and systems. Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1968)
can be credited as the first African leader to coherently articulate, align and incorporate
traditional African participatory ethos into the mainstream development agenda.
Nyerere advocated a model of development planning in Tanzania which was entrenched
on the foundations of Ujamaa, a Kiswahili word for family-hood (Nyerere, 1968). Ujamaa is
what Njoh (2003) referred to in his book as well-defined organized village groupings. In Swahili
the word Ujama can be distinguished by one key characteristic. That is, a person becomes
successful by collectively working and pursuing ideals which are deemed beneficial for all.
In Nyerere’s philosophy inscribed in the Arusha Declaration (1967) the idea of Ujamaa
villages was translated into a communal political-economic management model guided by the
following principles: (1) managing community natural resources (e.g. land, water or wealth)
collectively at the village level with the aim of maximizing productive capabilities to the benefit
of everybody that draw dependence on it; (2) Cultivating and fostering a kind of self-reliance by
transforming economic and cultural attitudes of the masses in the villages. These involved
encouraging people to develop a positive attitude towards work as a means of uniformly serving
the individual, the community and the nation which is referred to in Swahili as Kujenga taifa
(Nyerere, 1967).
To summarize Nyerere’s vision, the core African participatory perspective was that
African nations had to depend on themselves by investing in community collectivism. This was
later to be known as villagization which in Kiswahili meant Kushirikiana. Nyerere advised

32
African leaders to listen to their people and embrace communal work ethic through cooperation.
For Nyerere, this was the best path to achieving sustainable development. In this extract from the
Arusha Declaration, Nyerere used thought-provoking terms in rooting for local initiative and CP
in development planning. He stated that
At the root of the whole problem is our failure to understand and apply to our own
activities the concept of self-reliance. We are still thinking that big schemes and orthodox
methods will solve our problems. We do not approach a people by asking how we can
solve it by our own efforts with the resources we have in front of us (these include local
labor, knowledge and community network and cooperation – my own emphasis
added)….. Indeed, local initiatives are often scorned, as not being modern enough…….
When even any problem is being tackled or any new development is being proposed, our
first question should be: what can as a village or district or region or nation do to solve
the problem ourselves (Nyerere, 1967, p. 20).
Later on Nyerere’s call for the use of local knowledge became a powerful concept within
the academy of international development. Organizations such as the United Nations, United
States Agency for International Development, and World Health Organizations subscribed to CP
ethos in their work in the previously colonized nations (Njoh, 2003). In fact, studies by
Chambers (1983), Cohen and Uphoff (1977), Crouch and Chamala (1979), Elliot (1976), Pearse
and Stiefel (1979) and Roling (1978) attest to the foregoing assertion. These studies
demonstrated that in many parts of the developing world, the majority of people had been
excluded from the benefits of socio-economic development. For this, reason the concept of CP,
as emulated in traditional African ethos, had to be reintroduced as a viable strategy for redressing
the experience of underdevelopment in Africa.

33
2.1.2 CP from the Western Perspective
On the Western hemisphere, the modern theory of CP as illustrated by Mansuri et al
(2013) can be traced to the classical works of Rousseau and Mill. In his famous book The Social
contract or principles of political right (1762), Rousseau equated CP with the contemporary
liberal democratic principles, a political model where people make interdependent decisions that
take into account the will of everybody. That is, communities establishing policies based on a
plethora of views with benefits and burdens equally shared by the masses. To Rousseau, CP was
more than a method of involvement or decision-making. Instead it was a practical process by
which individuals expressed empathy for one another, and in doing so, accommodated the public
interest. Participation from this perspective, Mansuri et al (2013) stated, served an important
educational function. In other words, the individual learned how to become a citizen by first
having a sense of belonging in a community. Indeed, many scholars today would agree with
Wraight (2008) in contending that Rousseau view of citizen participation has had remarkable
influence on the Western political, philosophical and educational thought.
Within this framework, it is necessary to introduce the pioneering work of John Stuart
Mill (1859, 1879). It has been argued that Mill’s ideologies which are anchored in the work of
Rousseau, also profoundly shaped the contemporary view of participation. To be specific,
Mansuri et al (2013) argued that Mill basically rooted for CP based on the premise that a
centralized form of governments was too intrusive on people’s lives. In fact such fears led Mill
to warn that universal suffrage and participation in national government were of little use if
citizens were not prepared to be fully involved at the grassroots. For these reasons, Mill argued
that collective management through community involvement would make people appreciate
public over individual interest.

34
According to Mansuri et al (2013), Rousseau and Mill’s ideas about participation were
later refined in the eighteenth century by leading thinkers such as Henry Maine (1876) and
George Howard Douglas Cole (1921). Maine, for instance, vouched for CP out of the recognition
that it prepared people to be good active citizens. That is, the process of involving people in local
development projects trained them to think in terms of the public good rather than individual
interest. Moreover, for Maine, participation helped people in developing the ability to hold the
State or the markets accountable. Notwithstanding, it also influenced the decisions that affected
people’s lives. In the Western political and philosophical growth participation therefore evolved
into two main branches. This includes the Rousseau form of participation with tethered focus on
building collective identity, and Mill’s participation which was interested in the election of
representative governments (Mansuri et al, 2013).
2.1.3 CP from the Asian Perspective
From the Eastern, or more specifically, the Asian perspective, the concept of CP was
greatly popularized by the legendary work of Mahatma Gandhi (Mansuri & Rao, 2004). In a
monograph titled Village Swaraj, first published in (1962), Gandhi strongly argued for the
promotion of community/citizen participation as a viable strategy in development planning
through the organization of village Panchayats. Panchayats was a kind of local community-
controlled self-government at the village level. Gandhi’s view on the creation of the Panchayats
system was that, if organized along scientific lines, would ensure a greater participation of the
people. Consequently, this led to a more effective and robust mechanism for implementing rural
development projects such as village agriculture, health and hygiene, transportation, irrigation
and cattle welfare. Gandhi dedicated most of his work to the cause of rural reconstruction
through the promotion of CP as the center piece of management.

35
Mishra (2002) contends that for Gandhi, the utilization of the energy of the vast army of
the rural unemployed through CP was the only viable antidote for mitigating some of the
negative economic impacts created by the decade-long British rule in India. In Gandhi’s terms,
genuine involvement of ordinary citizens in all development activities including actual planning
was key for economic growth of nations in the Southern hemisphere.
Overall, even though the evolution of the concept is quite long, the foundations of CP
theory is further articulated in the contemporary works of scholars such as Bhasin (1985), Fals,
Borda (1988), Fuglesang and Chandler (1986), Galjart (1981, 1982), Gran (1985), Rahman
(1984, 1985), and Roling (1987). The common argument advanced by these scholars is that any
effective model of development should adapt to the social, economic and political contexts of the
people involved in the process. Indeed, two important assertions are made by all these scholars.
First, they contend that poverty is structured and has its roots in the economic and political
conditions of the people it affects. To combat poverty, it is important to develop the capacity of
the people it affects so that they can have a say in, and have influence on the forces which
control their lives. Second, that development programs or projects have largely ignored the vast
majority of poor people. Thus, there is a need to re-think new forms of development
interventions to ensure that the neglected majority have a chance to benefit from development
initiatives. The idea emerging from these assertions is that there is a need for more grassroots
public involvement in the development process.
The foregoing narrative suggests that community participation theory as an approach in
social development has a common intellectual interconnectedness across all cultures. Despite
this, there is no consensus on how the concept of CP should be defined. Instead, different
analysts have proposed varying definitions for the concept.

36
2.1.4 Defining Community Participation
The roots of CP as an approach in social development can be traced to different cultures
across the globe. For this reason, CP has many definitions. The Oxford English dictionary, for
instance defines CP as “having a share in as in benefits or profits” or “taking part in”. This
implies that the rights of people to get involved in any activity that affect their lives are upheld.
Brager, Specht and Torczyner (1987) defined CP as a means of theoretically, intellectually or
physically educating a community in order to increase their competence on issues that affect
their own lives. From these two definitions participation can be viewed as a vehicle for
influencing decisions that affect people’s lives. It can also be viewed as a tool for transferring
power to the powerless.
Building on the aforementioned definitions, Armitage (1988) describe CP as a process by
which individuals take action in responding to public concerns. These may include people
voicing their opinions about decisions they may disagree with and living with the consequences
of their choices. Mathbor (2008) suggested that CP may be as simple as a response to the
traditional sense of powerlessness felt by the general public about decisions emanating from
authorities. This view of community participation is shared by Njoh (2002) who noted that
participation is a process which enables grassroots mobilization, which in turn, empowers the
poor. Similarly, Bridgen (2004) contends that participation simply entails community
involvement in and influence over the local decision making process. Within Njoh’s and
Bridgen’s theoretical context, CP is seen as an instrumental process in which communities
influence and become genuine partners in development initiatives or resource mobilization.
Westergaard (1986) defined CP as a uniform undertaking by the marginalized meant to increase
their control over resources whose distribution they would otherwise have no say. Similarly, the

37
World Bank Learning Group on Participatory Development (1995) defined participation as a
process through which stakeholder’s influence and share control over development initiative,
and the decisions and resources which affect them. The United Nations Economic and Social
Council Resolution (1929) defined CP as process which entailed voluntary or democratic
involvement of the citizenry in: (1) contributing to the development effort, (2) sharing equally
the benefits accrued from the process, and (3) decision-making in respect of setting goals,
formulating policies and planning and implementing economic and social development.
All these definitions advanced by different scholars seem related. However, within the
broader context of this inquiry and for the purpose of clarity, Paul’s (1987) still prevails. Paul’s
definition incorporates most of the indicators which have been used to operationalize the act of
community involvement. For this reason it will be adopted in this inquiry. Paul defined CP as an
active process through which communities are able to influence the direction and execution of
development projects. The purpose is to enhance their overall well-being rather than merely
targeting the share of project dividends accrued at the end.
Paul’s definition is based on the following four tenets. First, he stressed that the context
of participation should be de-linked from political involvement. Second, that community, and not
government bureaucrats or donor staff, should be at the forefront of participation. Third, that the
success of CP should be measured through joint collaboration mechanisms employed in
conjunction with the implementers and benefactors (which are the communities involved in the
development process). Fourth, that CP should be seen as a process of achieving an outcome. Paul
cautioned that this definition does not imply that there will be uniformity in all community
development projects where CP mechanisms are applied. He stressed the necessity of
considering factors such as project implementation methods and the scope in which beneficiaries

38
are integrated into the projects. This means the adoption of measures which are designed to
enable participation of ordinary citizens at all levels of the development process. This definition
is remarkable because, it extends the concept of community participation beyond the
development of policy to decision making, implementation and finally evaluation (Stoker, 1997).
Based on Paul’s definition and the theoretical foundation within which this study is
situated, it is therefore important to pay special attention to indicators which can be used to
measure participation. Indicators provide the foundations from which progress; effectiveness or
outcome of development projects can be grounded or explained (Morrisset, 2000).
2.1.5 Community Participation Indicators
Participatory indicators are parameters used in ascertaining whether a project was
implemented and/or is being operated through a participatory approach. In the community water
services provisioning sector some of the major indicators which have been used to measure
community participation were reviewed by Kabila (2002). Most of these indicators have featured
in the work of leading CP analyst such as Awortwi (2012), Bowen (2008), Cornwall (2008),
Harvey and Reed (2007), Khan and Anjum (2013), Prokopy (2005), Sara and Davis (2012),
Wright (1997), Yacoob and Walker (1991) and Yohalem (1990). As outlined by Kabila (2002),
such indicators include: (1) participation in decision making, (2) informed choice, (3) economic
contributions, (4) representation, (4) responsibility, (5) authority, (6) control, and (7) partnership.
Participation in decision making refers to the fact that for a project to be considered as
having been implemented or functioning under a CP paradigm, ideas emanating from the
beneficiaries should be given preference. These include elements such as the incorporation of
women’s views into project implementation and operations. As Postel (1997) has argued, women
are among the majority of people affected by water issues in the developing world.

39
Informed choice as a participatory indicator refers to the understanding that beneficiaries
are adequately informed of the choices available to them. This furnishes them with the ability of
managing projects upon their completion. Economic contribution refers to the act of
beneficiaries willingly accepting to contribute money, labor, or materials to projects.
Contribution can also take the form of participating in project activities such as meetings.
Representation refers to the notion that diversity within the beneficiary community should be
reflected in project management teams. Elections to position of leadership should be democratic.
Minorities such as women or the chronically poor should be given equal opportunity for
management roles. Responsibility means that the community should be made aware of the
burden of responsibility. They should know that the project belongs to them and its failure or
success falls on their shoulders. Authority as an indicator means that the government and donor
agencies involvement in the decision making and operational mechanisms should be minimal.
Involvement of such secondary agencies should only occur if requested by the beneficiaries.
Finally, Control means that the community should be empowered to carry out major decisions
and determine their outcome. The role of the government or donor agencies should remain
consultative.
2.1.6 Key Studies on the Effects of CP in Water Provisioning
Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of CP on the outcome of
water supply projects. Table 2.1 shows a summary of these studies.
Narayan (1995) reviewed 121 rural water supply projects in 48 different countries. The
data used in the study were generated from the project report evaluations. The main objective of
the study was to understand the effect of beneficiary participation on project effectiveness. To
accomplish this task a multivariate regression model was used with projects as the unit of

40
analysis. Participation was quantified on a 7-point scale. A score of one meant there was no
participation while a score of seven meant there was a significant level of participation. The
study also clustered stages of participation as projects progressed, for example through planning
stages, construction, operation and maintenance. Using factor analysis, the statisticians
determined that overall beneficiary participation could be used as the main measure of
participation. Again by using factor analysis on the performance results of 20 projects an overall
measure of project effectiveness was generated. Results from this study showed that beneficiary
participation was more significant than any other factor i.e. appropriate technology or availability
of repair technicians in achieving well-functioning water systems. Narayan’s study has received
two main criticisms on how it used statistical evidence to account for a causal impact of
participation in project performance. The first is that it used subjective measures to gauge
participation. Critics argue that this may not be accurate in statistical analysis (Verbeek, 2002).
The second criticism came out of concern of the “halo effects” which is the potential bias in
project rankings which might have emanated from project evaluators who could have been
participatory proponents or vice versa (Prokopy, 2002).
A similar research to Narayans’ study though qualitative in nature was undertaken in two
regions in Kerala India by Manikutty (1997). The objective of this study was to investigate the
impacts of CP on rural water projects funded by different development agencies. The study was
based on a set of two projects identified as project I and project II. Participatory techniques were
applied in project I but not in project II. Some of the participatory techniques applied in project I
included making beneficiaries select stand pipe locations, asking beneficiaries to provide land in
which stand pipes were to be erected, labor provision and maintenance. Some of the community
members with medical knowledge were also requested to provide sanitation and health

41
Table 2.1 Key Studies Evaluating the Effect of CP on Water Supply Projects
Study Objective/Focus of the
Study

Operationalization of
Participation
Operationalization of
Success
Main Results/Findings

1. Narayan (1995)
Study carried in
48 countries with
data generated
from project
evaluations

Analyzed the effect of
beneficiary
participation on
project effectiveness
Through factor
analysis “overall
beneficiary
participation on a
scale of 1 to 7”
Overall project
effectiveness: results of
factor analysis on 20
performance outcomes
CP found to be a significant indicator
of overall project success
2. Manikutty
(1997) – Two
rural water
projects in India
Investigated the
relationship between
CP and outcome in
two rural water
projects – one
implemented under
the CP regime and the
other not – compare
and contrast
Beneficiary voice in
choice of system and
equipment like pipes,
willingness to
contribute resources
such as land, labor, &
lastly level of women
involvement in the
water management
committees
(a) Technological
outcome
(b) Percentage use of
water source
(c) Changes in health
habits
(d) Level of
community
commitments
(e) Satisfaction of
beneficiaries
Comparative results showed that CP
led to better project outcome based on
all the five variables used to measure
success

3. Sara and Katz
(1998) Reviewed
125 community
based water
projects in 6
countries

Primary hypothesis
“water supply services
which are demand
responsive are more
likely to be sustainable
than services which
are less demand
responsive”

Demand
responsiveness
operationalized as (i)
Willingness to pay,
(ii) Prioritization and
(iii) informed
decisions

(a) Physical condition
(b) Consumer
satisfaction
(c) O&M practices
(d) Financial
management
(e) Willingness to
sustain the system

Demand-responsiveness increases
sustainability. Put differently
sustainability is higher in
communities when projects followed
a demand-responsive approach

42
Table 2.1 Continued…
Study Objective/Focus of the
Study

Operationalization of
Participation
Operationalization of
Success
Main Results/Findings

4. Kleemeier
(2000) – Study
undertaken in
Malawi – Data
collected through
focus group
discussions,
interviews and
technical
evaluations of
projects

To determine whether
rural water supplies
that were implemented
with strong
foundations of
effective community
participation approach
could achieve
reasonable levels of
sustainability
– The study was
anthropologically
qualitative

Community
willingness to provide
labor, maintenance
and minimal revenue
for the water

Groups of small
committees
democratically
elected to work with
both the beneficiaries,
funding agencies and
local government
officials

(a) Schemes
functionality in
terms of supplying
water efficiently
(b) Physical conditions
of the schemes in
comparison to the
number of years in
operation
(c) Consumer
satisfaction

Two findings emerged

The older the schemes got the less
productive they became

Smaller schemes functioned better
than larger schemes thus making long
term sustainability in larger schemes
weak
5. Isham and
Kahkonen
(2001) – Two
rural water
projects in India
and one in Sri
Lanka – Data
collected through
household
surveys and
interview with
water
management
committees
The study attempted to
answer the following
question “Under what
circumstances is
community based
approach in water
resource management
most likely to
succeed?”
Cash and labor
contribution

Operation and
maintenance
responsibility
(a) Quality of
construction
(b) Satisfaction with
service
(c) Health impacts
Well-designed/ well-constructed
water services lead to improved
health and reduced time in water
collection

CP is instrumental in establishing
well-designed/well-constructed water
services

43
Table 2.1 Continued…
Study Objective/Focus of the
Study

Operationalization of
Participation
Operationalization of
Success
Main Results/Findings

6. Prokopy (2005)
– Two water
supply projects
in India analyzed
– Data collected
through
household and
village surveys

The study examined
which variables within
the participatory
pantheon were
instrumental in
establishing successful
water projects
Capital contribution

Household
involvement in
decision making

Transparency in water
committee operations
(a) Consumer
satisfaction
(b) Tariff payment
(c) Equal success
(d) Time saving in
water collection
(e) Belief in the system
Positive relationship between the
number of households in a village that
contributed towards capital and better
project outcome

Positive association between more
involvement in decision making and
better project design
7. Priyan Das
(2009) – study
completed in
fulfillment of a
dissertation
research at the
University of
California in Los
Angeles – Data
was collected
through
household
surveys,
interview and
personal
observations
Attempted to
investigated how
collective action by
different actors
particularly women
influenced project
effectiveness in
community managed
urban water supply
systems in three cities
in India
Community water and
sanitation committee
(CWASC) was
formed in each city

With help different
agencies the
committee was
responsible for the
planning, designing
and implementing the
water supply system

The user committee
was also responsible
for collecting user fee
for O&M
(a) Attitudes, behaviors
and experiences both of
providers and users
(b) Assessment of
water supply situation
in the three study areas
(c) Agency user
relations
(d) Level of women
participation

Institutional management either
impedes or facilitate collective action
at the community level thus
influencing project effectiveness

Government and community
partnership does lead to a boost in
project effectiveness

Women participation was found to be
crucial within collective action
institutions such as user committees

44
awareness. The variables that were analyzed included (a) technological outcomes measured in
terms of water quality and percentage of taps in operation after a certain period of use, (b) use of
water source measured by the percentage of people using water from project I (with CP
techniques) versus the percentage of people using water from project II (without CP techniques),
(c) changes in health habits, for example, comparing percentage change in health awareness
between the two projects, (d) continued community involvement, defined as level of community
commitment in terms of maintaining cleanliness near water stand pipe areas, keeping facilities in
working condition or time taken to report defects, and (e) satisfaction of beneficiaries, measured
through direct questioning to assess the extent to which the respondents were satisfied with the
facilities provided by the project and their functioning.
The comparative results between the two set of projects shows superior outcome for
project I which was implemented through a CP regime. For technological outcomes, the finding
was that a high percentage of taps were in working condition upon project completion. More
people switched over to using water which was provided through CP techniques. The water was
cleaner and supply constant. Health care habits of the community changed, for example water
points were kept clean and few people defecated near water points. Taps stayed in good working
condition for longer periods of time. Breakages were reported and efficiently repaired in time, an
indication of project sustainability. On the community empowerment front, there was a
noticeable improvement in open communication between beneficiaries and government
authorities. The overall satisfaction and sense of ownership by the beneficiaries were recorded as
high. Manikutty summarized the superior outcome in project I as (a) better aggregation of
preferences, (b) more effective generation of demand, (c) greater responsiveness by the
bureaucracy, (d) sustainability through enhanced feeling of ownership, and (e) better design

45
through incorporation of local knowledge. Generally the result from this study indicated that CP
is beneficial in delivering successful water project outcomes.
Building on Manikutty’s work, Sara and Katz (1998) examined the relationship between
CP and sustainability aspects of water projects. They hypothesized that water supply services
which were more demand- responsive were more likely to be sustainable at the community level
than services which were less demand-responsive. In this study a project was defined as being
more or less demand-responsive to the degree that users make choices and commit resources in
support of such choices. The dependent variable, sustainability was an index composed of factors
such as consumer satisfaction, operation and maintenance practices, financial management and
willingness to sustain the system.
The findings from this study indicated a statistically significant relationship between
demand-responsiveness and project sustainability. Firstly, sustainability was found to be higher
in communities where projects followed a demand-responsive approach. However, most projects
were found to be lax in applying rules in the communities they worked. Secondly, sustainability
was found to be higher when demand was expressed directly by household members instead of
traditional chiefs or community representatives. Lastly, a designated community organization
was a necessary bridge in ensuring the success of a project. This latter study has received a few
criticisms since its publication. Some critics such as Thorsten (2007) have argued that the study
relied on a very small sample size and therefore could not adequately demonstrate causal
relationships. Furthermore the study has been criticized for relying excessively on additive
approach for factors and indicators of sustainability using ordinal scoring (Ibid). It is argued that
this method dwells heavily on subjective measurements thus limiting the degree of variation
present among variables (Thorsten, 2007).

46
The findings in the Sara et al (1998) study are somewhat similar to the findings of
Kleemeier (2000) whose work was anthropological in nature. Kleemeier examined a Malawi
rural piped water scheme. Her primary goal was to determine whether rural water supplies
implemented with strong foundations of effective participatory mechanisms could achieve
reasonable levels of sustainability. The Malawi piped water scheme often presented model of
success for the participatory approach.
Kleemeier concluded that CP is more robust in setting up community organizations
capable of managing very small rural piped water projects. However, she contended that CP does
not entirely address the needs of larger schemes thus making long term sustainability weak in
such schemes. In this regard Kleemeier’s suggestion is to introduce contribution as an incentive
to promote sustainability. The management committee can utilize that extra revenue to solve
problems whenever they arise. The study is among the few that have compared the effects of
participation in both large and small communities.
Next, Isham and Kahkonen (2001) analyzed two rural water projects in India and one in
Sri Lanka. Using quantitative and qualitative data from 1,088 households and 50 water
committees, they examined circumstances under which a community-based approach in water
resource management is most likely to succeed. They employed an econometric statistical
technique in answering this question. Results from the econometric models came out in three
interacting layers. First, it confirmed that well-designed and well-constructed water services lead
to improved household health and reduced time of water collection. Secondly, well-designed and
well-constructed water services could be better attained by involving more community members
in the design process and also by allowing beneficiaries not outsiders to make final decisions
about the type of services needed. Lastly they revealed that a community-based approach in

47
water resource production and management is most likely to succeed in communities with
existing active community groups and associations. The project design in such communities was
better and participation robust because households were already accustomed to working together.
Indeed this was the researchers’ most significant contribution in the study. The fact that social
capital was instrumental for the success of community operated water projects. In terms of policy
recommendations, the authors asserted that it is necessary for development workers to allocate
some investment for social capital enhancement when constructing water projects under the CP
regime.
Extensions of the findings by Isham et al (2001) are echoed in a quantitative study
conducted by Linda Stalker Prokopy (2005) in India. This study extended the participatory
dialogue by examining variables within the participatory domain are instrumental in establishing
successful water projects. Two World Bank-assisted rural water and sanitation projects were
used as a case study. The study employed data collected at both household and village levels, and
used three distinct measures to gauge participation. These measures included capital
contribution, household involvement in decision making, and transparency in water committee
operations. Regression models were used to analyze the data with a view of quantifying project
outcomes. The outcomes were indexed as follows (a) consumer satisfaction, (b) tariff payment,
(c) equal access, (d) time saving and (b) belief in the system. Results generated from the study
revealed that higher capital cost contribution was associated with higher beneficiary satisfaction
with the working of the water system. Prokopy asserted that the high level of satisfaction could
have been generated presumably by the fact that households having helped to pay for the system
felt a sense of ownership. The second finding was that the more households felt they participated
in decision making in a village the better the outcome from the project in terms of design and

48
operation. This supported the general conception that a voice in decision making is an indicator
of genuine participation. Prokopy’s study has been influential in promoting an understanding on
the relationships between household participation and the performance of village level water
supply projects.
Prior to Prokopy’s study, an extensive literature review by Mansuri and Rao (2004)
provided mixed results on the effectiveness of community participation in development projects.
Included in the review are over 100 studies published in peer reviewed journals within the last
decade. The general conclusions made in Mansuri and Rao’s (2004) extensive review are as
follow:1) projects which adopt participatory techniques have not all been very successful in
enhancing the livelihoods of the poor, 2) while several studies demonstrate the power of
participation in creating effective community infrastructure, no study has managed to establish
direct causal relationships between any outcome and participation, 3) most community
development projects tend to be captured by elites and more so in communities where there is a
high inequality gap between the rich and the poor, 4) the sustainability of community-based
initiatives depend mostly on the existence of supporting institutional framework within the
community, 5) collaboration between the community and external agents are essential for the
success of projects however external facilitators are often poorly trained to make this happen,
and 6) the naïve application of complex contextual concepts like participation, social capital and
empowerment often lead to poor design and substandard implementation of development
projects.
Another review by Lockwood (2003) also provides important insights on the effects of
post-construction support and the sustainability of village water projects. The primary objective
of Lockwood’s review was to test the hypothesis that sustainability is linked not only to the

49
existence of specific conditions and factors before and during construction of water supply or
sanitation system, but also to specific factors well beyond the end of construction. His findings
are that from existing literature there is a lack of adequate evidence on the effectiveness of post-
construction support. His reasoning for the lack of evidence is that most studies have mainly
focused on measuring sustainability using pre-construction variables. For Lockwood, certainly
there are other post-construction factors which may influence sustainability. These include the
quality of project implementers and the existence of supportive policy environments.
The most recent study which is similar to this inquiry was undertaken by Priyan Das
(2009) in India. Priyan Das’s study is unique in two ways. First, it is among the few that have
attempted to investigate the impact of CP in water production and management in a peri-urban
setting. Secondly, it attempted to unravel how collective action by actors and specifically women
affect success in community operated water schemes. The study also employed mixed methods
to analyze the data which were collected through household surveys, in-depth interviews, and
personal observations. The findings reveal that, institutional arrangement either impeded or
facilitated collective action at the community level, thereby influencing project effectiveness.
Secondly, a direct partnership for service delivery between users and the government boosted
project effectiveness as it has the potential to transform agency user relations. Finally, although
women participation in the project is not a significant factor for project effectiveness, in general,
their participation in decision-making roles was found to be crucial within collective action
institutions such as the user committees.
2.2 Gaps in the Literature
A survey of the relevant literature shows that the concept of community participation has
a rich history. CP has been applied in water service production and management for decades in

50
the developing world. Based on existing empirical evidence, providing water to those living in
rural areas has somewhat improved by the introduction of participatory techniques. Most of the
studies reviewed in Table 2 support this assertion.
In urban centers adequate water provisioning still remains an elusive goal especially for
those living in informal settlements (Gulyani et al, 2010). Evidence suggests that poor
maintenance and management of water infrastructure plus inefficient resource allocation are the
main causes of inept service delivery (Franceys, 2008). From both theoretical and practical
standpoints, development workers and urban planners have often responded by pursuing policies
aimed at urban water commoditization (Gleick et al, 2006; UN Environmental Programme, 2002;
Young & MacDonald 2003). The arguments advanced by privatization scholars are based on the
premise that pure monetization of water in urban centers (which include informal
settlements/neighborhoods) leads to a reduction in cost and demand (Petrova, 2006). Decreased
demand creates changes in consumption preferences which will make consumers less wasteful.
In short the commoditization of water in urban centers as advocated by neoliberals is
premised on the belief that it would make water resources more efficient, economically
sustainable and most importantly, equitable (Postel, 1997). That is to say, investors will have the
incentive to expand water service delivery to places located at the fringes of urban peripheries
often characterized by informality (Hung & Chie, 2013; Olmstead & Stavins 2007; Rogers, De
Silva & Bhatia, 2002; Valinas, 2005). Several municipal councils in the developing world
therefore adopted or were forced by major development organizations to incorporate
privatization as the best strategy for improving urban water service delivery (Budds &
McGranahan, 2003). However, it is now time to recognize that despite all the efforts made to
privatize urban water services, management has not improved to the scale required especially in

51
the urban informal settlements. In many cities across the developing world water supply system
are still characterized by intermittent water supply, corruption and high levels leakages (Postel,
1997; Stottmann, 2000). In fact water leakage alone in selected African cities is estimated to
have an equivalent cost of USD1 billion per year (Banerjee & Morella, 2011). It is thus clear that
there is a problem in theory and practice necessitating a study.
This study will provide further evidence on the nature and role of CP theory in
explicating water production and management dynamics in urban informal settlement. It is
important to acknowledge the fact that informal settlements have unique characteristics which
privatization or public provisioning of water have somewhat failed to address. One of these
characteristics is the fact that infrastructure in informal settlements/neighborhoods are cramped
and precariously constructed. The settlements are often located in flood prone areas. Sanitation is
poor and this results to physical constraints with regards to water infrastructure development.

3. METHODS

This chapter begins with description of the mixed-methods approach, a well-known
approach in the social science, which is seldom employed in development planning research.
This is followed by two broad sub-sections discussing the quantitative and qualitative aspects of
the study respectively. The last section contains a discussion of some data quality and
management issues encountered in the study. However, before proceeding with the description of
the mixed methods approach, it is necessary to briefly expand on the two most dominant research
approaches often used in development planning. These are the quantitative or qualitative
research design/approach.
Leading scholars in the field of development planning have attempted to define
qualitative and quantitative research designs by offering a wide range of working definitions.
Others have done the same by identifying a set of key characteristics found in the two
approaches. Denzin and Linclon (2000:3) defined qualitative research approach as a situated
activity that locates the observer in the world. Put differently, it consists of a set of interpretive
and material practice that makes the world visible. These practices Denzin et al. (2003)
contended turn the world into a series of representations depicted through field notes, interviews,
conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self. Within this framework, Denzin et
al. (2003:3) observed that qualitative research involves “an interpretive, naturalistic approach to
the world where researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of,
or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them”. Some of these

53
characteristics are echoed by Bryman (1988:8) who stated that “the way in which the individuals
being studied understand and interpret their social reality is one of the central motifs of
qualitative research”. Indeed, some of the words used in the foregoing definitions are also
reflected in the work of other theorists (see e.g., Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995; Miles and
Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002). In the field of data collection, the main aspects of qualitative
research identified by these experts include observational methods, in-depth interviewing, focus
group discussions, narratives and analysis of documentary evidence (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). In
the development planning and especially in the water production and management sector, the
following studies some of which have been reviewed in chapter two adopted the qualitative
research strategy (see e.g, Chambers, 1983; Kleemeier, 2000; Manikutty, 1997; Njoh, 2002;
Oakley, 1991; Prokopy, 2002; Smith, 1994; Social Policy & Development Center, 1996).
Quantitative research design is another approach often used in the development planning
arena. Generally it is viewed as being associated with the positivist/post-positivist paradigm
where data is objectively collected and converted into numerical forms (Onwuegbuzie et al,
2004).The aim is to draw generalizations of results from a sample to an entire population of
interest (Babbie, 2004). According to Aliaga and Gunderson (2000), quantitative research
involves “explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using
mathematical based methods and specifically statistics”. Creswell (2004) asserted that
quantitative research approach is generally based on the following five pillars. 1) Ontological
assumption which implies that reality is objective and singular from the researcher. 2)
Epistemological assumption meaning the researcher is different from that being researched. 3)
Axiological assumption which calls for a bias free research where there is a separation of
emotions from the process of scientific inquiry. 4) Rhetorical assumption meaning an involved

54
investigator. 5) Methodological assumption meaning a deductive process based on cause and
effect. Quantitative research approaches mainly rely on surveys and different statistical
techniques to gather and analyze data respectively. In the development planning arena and
specifically in water production and management sector, the following studies have employed
quantitative research design (see, e.g. Dayal et al, 2000; Esman & Uphoff, 1984; Finsterburch &
van Wicklin, 1989; Isham & Kahkonen, 2002; Khawja, 2002; Prokopy, 2005; Sara & Katz,
1998).
Combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches is now becoming common.
This approach also known as the mixed method approach was employed in this inquiry. The
study will now turn to focus on this approach. It is important to note that it has rarely been
employed in development planning research with exception of the following studies (see e.g.
Narayan, 1995; Das, 2009).
3.1 Mixed Methods
The mixed methods approach was employed in this study to collect and analyze both
primary and secondary data. Axim and Pearce (2006) define mixed methods as a research
approach characterized by the application of both qualitative and quantitative techniques into one
study. This definition is consistent with that advanced by Creswell et al (2003), Green et al
(1989) and Tashakkori et al. (1998). The mentioned scholars refer to mixed methods as the
“pragmatic approach” because it is a practical, yet philosophically-grounded research approach.
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2009) noted that the approach falls into two broad categories, namely
fully and partially mixed methods. The difference between the two is that in fully mixed methods
both qualitative and quantitative techniques are mixed within one or more stages of the research
process or across stages. However, in partially mixed methods, both the quantitative and

55
qualitative elements are conducted either concurrently or sequentially in their entirety before the
data interpretation stage.
The partially mixed methods design is further divided into four components based on
time orientation and emphasis status (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2009). These are: (1) partially mixed
concurrent equal status design, (2) partially mixed concurrent equal dominant status design, (3)
partially mixed sequential equal status design, and (4) partially mixed sequential dominant status
design.
In the present inquiry, a partially mixed concurrent equal status design is employed. The
model involved collecting quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously with all phases having
equal weight (Caracelli & Green, 1997; Onwuegbuzie et al, 2009). Data integration took place
after the analysis of each strand was completed. Questionnaire surveys were used to collect
quantitative data. Focus group discussions (FGDs), archival inquisition, transect walks and
observations were used to gather qualitative data.
Quantitative data were used to investigate the possible impacts of CP on beneficiary
satisfaction with the work of the management committees in the water schemes. They were also
use to examine the contribution of CP on the production of clean potable water supply in the
informal settlement/neighborhoods (see, table 3.1). The qualitative data were used in showcasing
the participatory-related factors affecting the performance of the schemes. However, in some
instances both data sources were used to corroborate/triangulate findings in some qualitative and
quantitative sections (Green et al, 1989; Morgan, 1998). According to Bryman (1998) the
concept of complementarity is one of the strengths of mixed methods approach. Table 3.1
provides a summary of the research design employed by the study. Included in the design are
data collection techniques, sampling criteria and the techniques employed in data analysis.

56
Table 3.1 Summary of the Research Design Employed by the Study

Research Question (RQ)

Data
Sources

Sampling
Design

n
Quantitative Phase Qualitative Phase
Data
Collection
Instrument
Data
Analysis
Data Collection Data
analysis

RQ1 – What are the relationship
between CP and beneficiary
satisfaction with the water
management committee work in
the four schemes?

Primary

Simple
Random

318

Survey

Logistic
Regression

Not Applicable

Not
Applicable

RQ2 – What are the contributions
(positive or negative) of CP on the
production of clean potable water
supply in the informal settlement?

Primary

Simple
Random

318

Survey

Chi-square
test

Not Applicable

Not
Applicable

RQ3 – What are the participatory-
related factors affecting the
performance of the schemes?

Primary

Purposive
non-random
sampling

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable
1. 12 FGDs
each with 8
participants
2. Observations
3. Transect
walks
4. Archival data

Constant
Comparative
Analysis

57
A detailed discussion of these techniques thus follows under two main sub-headings namely the
quantitative phase and qualitative phase.
3.2 Quantitative Phase – Data Source and Sampling
3.2.1 Surveys
As shown in Table 3.1, the study relied on data collected through surveys to answer RQ1
and RQ2. Survey methods were adopted because it allowed us to collect a large amount of data
in a short period of time. Moreover, as compared to other data collection techniques, surveys
tend to be less expensive considering the fact that this is a PhD dissertation with limited time
frame and resources. Lastly, to answer RQ1 and RQ2 we needed original numerical data from
individuals in the communities which were too large to directly observe. The survey was
administered through simple random sampling technique to households living in the settlements
where the schemes are located. The Kenya Independent Voter Register (KIVR) was used as the
sampling frame for the survey. The KIVR contains all the names of all registered voters living
within defined geographical areas in Kenya. In Kenya, all persons over the age of eighteen must
have a national identification card and must be a registered voter in their location of residence
(Laws of Kenya, The Constitutions of Kenya, 2010).
After obtaining the KIVR the research team approach was simple. To ensure fair
representation of the target population, we used excel software to randomly select 100 people
from each schemes locality. That is Obunga, Asengo, Wandiege and Paga. The selected sample
size corresponds to guidelines provided by Onwuegbuzie et al (2004). In reference to
correlational and causal-comparative research designs, they recommend a minimum sample size
of 64 participants for one-tailed hypotheses and 82 participants for two-tailed hypotheses tests.

58
The next task was locating the houses where the randomly selected people lived. With the
help of the local chiefs and SANA staff, the research team which comprised of the Principal
Investigator (P1), one supervisor and three research assistants, we were able to locate and survey
the eldest member of each household. For households who were not present during the first visit,
a second survey was arranged. In cases where the research team was unable to locate a
household member a replacement was sourced using simple random sampling criterion. To
ensure fair representation of male and female respondents, interviews were both carried out in
the morning and late evening. The reason for this is that, in Kenya most men tend be at work
during the day.
The questionnaire survey had a total of 57 items (see, Appendix C). These included
informed consent section, household demographic details, water situation in the household and
lastly household water and sanitation situation. Using simple random sampling technique a total
of 360 households were surveyed out of a total population of approximately 75,000 people. The
response rate was 86 percent. The survey was carried out by the principal investigator, one
supervisor and three research assistants. This constituted the research team for the entire study
including the qualitative data collection phase. The supervisor works as a program coordinator
for a local NGO in Kisumu. She was well conversant with the city geography and different water
and sanitation programs in the city. The three research assistants were all graduate students at
Nairobi University, Kisumu campus. The supervisor was recommended by the team leader of
SANA. The three research assistants were recruited through a rigorous interview process. They
all had prior experience with data collection techniques. In fact they were able to demonstrate
prior data collection knowledge during the interviewing process. Moreover, they produced
documentary evidence indicating their previous data collection work experience with different

59
internationally recognized organizations such as Care International Kisumu Office, USAID and
Action Aid.
The role of the P1 and the supervisor included overseeing the administration of the
questionnaire survey, checking the completed questionnaires for errors or omissions and lastly
helping with data entry in SPSS. The reason for choosing SPSS was due to the fact that it was the
only statistical package which P1 was well conversant with. The three research assistants were
responsible for face to face administration of the questionnaire survey. They were also tasked
with making observation and taking notes on the conditions of water sources, water storage
facilities and sanitation conditions of households interviewed. Before embarking on the field, the
research assistants were properly trained by the P1. The training covered administrative details
such as, interview duration, number of interviews expected to be completed in a day, Luo
traditional protocol approaches. Most importantly, the principal investigator and the supervisor
went through all the items in the questionnaire survey and ensured that they were well
understood by the three research assistants. This process included practicing reading the
questions loud and rephrasing any words or questions that appeared ambiguous. The data
collection time was between 8.00am and 5.00pm. During this time the supervisor and the
principal investigator were available for consultation for any further queries/or problems which
the research assistants may have encountered.
The research team (that is, the PI, a supervisor and three research assistants) gained entry
in the community through the help of local chiefs and two SANA employees. The chiefs made
local announcements of the impending research activity and purpose in community weekly
meetings. Before this took place the chiefs were adequately briefed on the purpose of the study
and how its findings may be useful in improving water service delivery in Kisumu’s informal

60
settlements. Table 3.2 summarizes activities undertaken as part of community entry process. This
is in compliance with University of South Florida IRB ethics guidelines. The USF IRB requires
researchers to ensure that they establish relationships with community members prior to
commencing their research. They must also adhere to community customs and protocols during
the entire research process. These actions are important because they helped in promoting trust
being the research team and the subjects. In addition they also helped in promoting public
support and ensuring that moral and social values of the community were upheld.
Table 3.2 Community Entry Procedure by the Research Team

Step

Activity

Initial visit made to the community Chiefs Office

Chiefs briefed on the research objectives and potential benefits to the community and the city

Data collection period announced in community weekly meetings

It is important to note that during the actual data collection time most of the residents
were very receptive to the research team. This is because the community was well acquainted
with SANA’s work in the settlement. All the research assistants were also fluent in Luo and
Kiswahili which are the dominant languages in Kisumu. The approximate length of each survey
was 50 minutes. The survey took a total of 10 days with each research assistant completing
approximately 9 questionnaires per day.

61
3.2.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
The purpose of the quantitative analysis was two-fold. (1) To explore what impacts CP
has had on beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the management committees in the four
water schemes. (2) To investigate what kind of contribution (positive or negative) CP has made
in the production of clean potable water supply in the informal settlement. Primary data from the
survey (N =318) were used to perform descriptive and logistic regression analysis. The main aim
was to establish if there was an association between the dependent variable (DV) and
independent variables (IV). Logistic regression analysis was appropriate for this type of
investigation because the dependent variable (beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the
management committee) had a binary outcome. Moreover, as stipulated by Pohlmann and
Leitner (2004), logistic regression is superior in providing accurate estimates especially in
studies where dependent data violets the assumptions found in ordinary least squares regression.
To explore the relationship between CP and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the
water management committees in the four schemes, both the bivariate and multivariate logistic
regression models were employed (RQ1). The DV (beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the
management committee) and IV (participatory variables) originated from direct questions on the
survey instrument. Beneficiary satisfaction was attained by the question “overall, how satisfied
are you and your household with the management work of the committee responsible for
managing your main source of water?”
The IV consisted of a series of participatory indicators which have been used in previous
studies. In the bivariate model, each independent variable (participation) was regressed against
the dependent variable (beneficiary satisfaction with the management committee’s work. In the

62
multivariate model participatory variables were regressed against the dependent variable
beneficiary satisfaction with the management committee’s work.
To explore what kind of contribution (positive or negative) that CP has made in the
production of clean potable water supply in the informal settlement (RQ2), the study developed
five models. The five models contained five DV each independently regressed against two IV.
The DV and IV originated from direct questions in the questionnaire survey and are aided by
what is contained in previous literature (see, e.g. IRC, 1999, Kleemeier, 2000; Manikutty, 1997).
They were operationalized as follows:
DV = (1) satisfaction with the smell of water.
DV = (2) cleaning and covering water storage containers.
DV = (3) visited doctor’s clinic.
DV = (4) willing to protect areas around water points.
DV = (5) perception of current access to clean portable water.
The two IV were:
IV = (1) main source of water
IV = (2) attended WATSAN meeting
3.3 Qualitative Phase – Data Source and Sampling
3.3.1 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Data from FGDs were used to answer research RQ3. Participants were selected by
purposive non-random sampling (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). They included water
management committees, women groups and water consumer groups. The assumption made was
that the selected participants who have lived in the settlement for many years have in-depth

63
knowledge on the functionality of the schemes. Patton (1990) would refer to this as an
information rich-group.
A total of 12 FGDs were carried out with approximately eight participants in each group.
Each FGD took approximately one hour twenty minutes. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the
information matrix of the FGDs. Table 3.4 provides a summary of the demographic
characteristics of the FGDs. As can be seen from the table, each FGD consisted of between eight
to twelve participants. The rationale for the range stems from the recommendation provided by
(Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Onwuegbuzie, Jiao & Bostick, 2004). They advise that focus
groups should consist of enough participants capable of yielding diverse information. However,
they should not include too many people as these may make some participants uncomfortable
thus refraining from sharing their opinions.
The FGDs were carried out at the community water offices. The location choice was
based the fact that they were the most accepting environment where participants would be free
and thoughtful when expressing their opinions and ideas (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The FGD
data were collected using a questioning route. The questioning route included the following. (1)
Two introductory questions (e.g., “since the establishment of the scheme what impacts do you
think the scheme has created in this settlement in regards to water service delivery”. (2) Three
transition questions (e.g., “what participatory related factors do you think have contributed to the
management success of this water scheme”. (3) Five key questions (e.g., “reflect back and make
a list of four most important factors you think have influenced the management success of your
scheme”. (4) A concluding question where participants were welcomed to add any comments
they may have wished to express.

64
The FGDs were conducted in the local Luo language in order to accommodate all the
audience. With the participants’ consent, all discussions were taped. The tape-recorded materials
were necessary to complement the long-hand notes thereby reinforcing the validity of the data
(Maxwell, 1992). We explained the purpose of the study, potential benefits and assured
participants that the study posed no risks to them. To ensure confidentiality, participants were
made aware that our discussions would remain private.
Table 3.3 Information Matrix of the Focus Group Discussions

Scheme

Women
group

Water consumer group

Management committee

Total

Wandiege

Obunga

Asengo

Paga

3
Total 4 4 4 12

65
Table 3.4 Characteristics of the Focus Group Discussion Participants
Water
scheme
Discussion
subgroup N
Mean age
(years)
House-
hold size
> 7 (%)
Residency > 5
years (%)
Scheme
membership >
3 years (%) Education Source of Income

At least
Primary (%)
At least
Secondary (%)
Trader/
small
Business
(%)
Salaried
(%)
Wage
(%)
Wandiege women 8 34 13 88 25 100 50 75 0 0
consumer 8 30 13 38 0 100 86 88 0 13
Asengo women 7 29 0 71 71 100 29 71 14 0
consumer 5 31 20 80 60 100 40 40 20 20
Paga women 7 34 0 86 86 100 43 71 14 14
consumer 5 36 40 100 80 100 100 20 40 0
Obunga women 12 37 8 75 33 100 33 75 25 0
consumer 8 30 0 63 50 100 63 75 13 0

All Management 11 52 9 100 91 100 91 55 36 0

66
3.3.2 Observation, Transect Walks and Photographic Evidence
Personal observation and transect walks were also employed as supplementary tools for
qualitative data collection. Transect walks are a series of leisure-like trips designed to familiarize
the research team with the target communities. The reason for using this approach was to the
acquisition of critical knowledge of the water and sanitation conditions within the settlements.
They were also used to confirm and cross-check which water points were operating optimally
and beneficiary water consumption practices. Most of the observation occurred during
community water meetings. Occasionally the research team which consisted of the principal
investigator, a supervisor and three research assistants also made unannounced visits to the
schemes where they freely interacted with the beneficiaries. On such occasions the team took
notes and photographs which helped in strengthening the validity of the findings. In fact, the
photographic evidence enabled the research team to gather factual evidence on the state of each
water scheme and those frequently attending community water meetings.
The team also took photographs of the location of the water offices and community water
points in the settlement. Language was not a problem because all members of the research team
spoke Luo and Kiswahili fluently. Generally, observation and transect walks offered unique and
valuable insights into how the schemes operated and how the beneficiaries interacted with each
other. These variables may be hard to quantify or when quantified may fail to provide accurate
information on what is actually taking place on the ground.
3.3.3 Qualitative Data Analysis
The main purpose in qualitative analysis was to obtain insights on the major
participatory-related factors accounting for/and or impeding success of the schemes. Data
analysis was based on an inductive research strategy. Specifically, constant comparison analysis

67
technique was employed. That is, themes (codes) which emerged from the focus group
discussions were processed and then corroborated with supporting evidence from survey data,
observation, transect walks and photographs.
The FGD’s were conducted in the local Luo language. Data analysis was conducted in
seven stages. The first stage involved transcribing the FGD data from Luo to English. Because of
potential translation drawbacks, great effort was made in preserving the original statements and
ideas of the participants. The second stage involved reading the transcripts aloud and classifying
the statements made by the FGD participants into smaller meaningful chunks. Upon completion
the codes were then attached to the chunks whereby each code corresponded with a unique non-
repetitive statement. In the third stage the research team listened to the audio tapes again and
classified more statements into codes. Listening to the tapes was very helpful. It enabled the
team to glean more information and verify additional quotations of interest. The fourth stage
involved grouping the codes by similarity and identifying themes. The fifth stage involved
classifying the themes into those that facilitated versus those that impeded the schemes’ success.
The last two stages involved the cross-case analysis of the themes and legitimization of the
findings.
The findings were legitimized by observing the following protocol. One, the classified
themes were corroborated with notes gathered through observation; transect walks and
photographic evidence (data triangulation; Denzin, 1978). Second, before classifying the themes
the research team went back and undertook member checking with the participants. Also known
as descriptive triangulation, this technique involved reading the themes and asking FGD
participants if they accurately depicted their statements (Janesick, 2000; Merriam, 1998).
Finally, in order to improve rigor, secondary data generated from peer reviewed articles were

68
also used to cross-validate the findings (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Greene, Caracelli &
Graham, 1989).
3.4 Rationale for Using Mixed Methods
Arguments supporting the use of mixed methods in research design and analysis abound
in the relevant literature. In chapter 6 of his book on “Quantity and quality in social research”
Bryman (1988) discusses a list of claims supporting the adoption of the mixed methods
approach. They include: (a) the logic of triangulation, (b) appropriateness in solving the problem
of generality, (c) the idea of complementarity, (d) structure and process and (e) further
interpretation of relationships.
The logic of triangulation is the notion that one type of inquiry can be used to crosscheck
the findings of another study or within a single study. This enhances validity. Solving the
problem of generality is an argument based on the premise that addition of quantitative evidence
may help mitigate the fact that it is not often possible to generalize qualitative findings. In
supporting this assertion, Green (2007) noted that the use of mixed method provides a researcher
with the techniques to probe the contested and challenge the given by engaging in multiple
perspectives.
The concept of complementarity is the belief that findings generated by qualitative
techniques can be used to patch up gaps left unattended by quantitative techniques or vice versa.
According to sociologist Lieberson (1992), the foundations of good research rest on “building
blocks of evidence” from a variety of perspectives and methods. Structure and process is the idea
that quantitative research is considered to be better at getting to the semantic features of social
life. On the same note qualitative studies are usually stronger in terms of detailing aspects of
social life. By building on the idea of complementarity, an argument can be made that the

69
strength from both branches can help in improving quality and accuracy. Lastly, further
interpretation of relationships is the notion that quantitative research is known for allowing
researchers to analyze and compare different variables or for establishing relationships.
However, they are weak in exploring reasons for the existence of such relationships. In such
cases qualitative methods can be employed to help explain the broad relationships established by
quantitative data.
Morgan (2007) showcased through examples two specific benefits of the mixed methods
approach. First, he noted that many researchers would describe the process of theory
development in qualitative research as being very inductive and quantitative research as being
very deductive. However, few qualitative studies start without any sense of a research question
or theoretical foundations. On the same token, few quantitative studies move from theory to
hypothesis test and then stop. The truth Morgan (2007:10) notes is that all research projects make
several moves between theory reconstruction and data analysis. For Morgan, “a strong mixed
methods approach call for abduction, the complementary and constant dialectic between
inductive and deductive theoretical development rather than a reliance on one of the other”.
In the present study the application of the mixed methods approach was expected to yield
complementary results and also support further interpretation of relationships. Specifically, the
quantitative data were designed to help in establishing a relationship between participation and
beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water management committees in the schemes.
They were also vital in highlighting the relationship between participation and clean water
service delivery in the settlements. In short, the approach enabled the study to tease out
associations between quantifiable variables as opposed to those that can-not be easily quantified.
Sydenstricker-Neto (2004) asserts that a strong mixed method way of thinking is a promising

70
means to generate a better understanding of complex problems. It has the potential to offer more
venues for producing outcomes that are more meaningful to both audiences and stakeholders.
Despite its strengths and potential benefits, the mixed methods approach has shortfalls.
One pitfall for using mixed methods in this study was the fear of data incompatibility (Brannan,
1992). To address this problem before it occurred, the research questions in this study were
modelled and framed to complement each other. The research questions were also subjected to a
review by experts in the field before data collection phase. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004)
observed that the foundation of study is the research questions. The methods are secondary and
should follow research questions in a way that offers the best chance in obtaining useful answers.
3.5 Selection Criteria for the Studied Schemes
The journey for selecting the schemes examined in this dissertation inquiry begun in the
summer of 2013. In June 2013, the Principal Investigator (P1) traveled to Kenya to review
several potential water projects for the present study. The P1 visited several organizations
working in partnership with different communities in the water service sector in Kisumu. After
two weeks of consultation and observation the work of SANA in the water service delivery
sector in Kisumu stood out. They had well-established water projects in Kisumu urban informal
settlements. Accordingly, the P1 approached SANA and arranged to meet their director to begin
the process of sampling different water schemes for a case study in this dissertation.
Table 3.5 is a summary of activities involved in the selection process. The first meeting
between the P1 and SANA’s director took place on 20
th
July 2013. In this meeting the director
described their work in the water service provisioning in Kisumu. He also introduced the P1 to
his staff and on the same day made available some vital organization document for any future
perusal. These included financial reports, memorandum of understandings between SANA and

71
Table 3.5 Summary of Selection Process of the Studied Water Schemes
Task Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

List all Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) working
in the water sector in Kisumu

Sampled all NGOs
known to be
involved in the water
service provision in
Kisumu, Kenya

Selected SANA

Arranged and interviewed the
team leader of SANA

Arranged for a
meeting with SANA
staff members

Visited 7 water
schemes established by
SANA in collaboration
with different
communities around
Kisumu

After consultation and review of
available secondary data, four
schemes were purposively
sampled. That is (Paga,
Wandiege, Asengo and
Obunga)

Arranged and made
a second visit to the
four sampled
schemes

Began writing the then
proposal and three
months later
successfully defended a
proposal and the study
got approved by the
dissertation committee
and IRB

the communities they were working with in Kisumu, minutes of community meeting attendance
and history on the establishment of different water schemes. The second meeting took place
three days later. During the course of this meeting, one of the staff was instructed to show the
Principal Investigator different water schemes SANA had established in the city. During the
visits the P1 was introduced to the water project management teams and the project beneficiaries
who were responsible for daily maintenance and operation of the schemes. The P1 also used this
opportunity to know the schemes better and take some insightful personal observations on the
schemes functionality. In total seven schemes were visited.
The next task involved the selection process of the examined schemes. The four schemes
were purposively sampled based on three parameters: (1) history and available operational

72
evidence, (2) recommendation from SANA and the schemes management team, and (3) the
research questions of interest in this dissertation. With regards to the evidence, the four chosen
schemes had detailed and sufficient secondary data. They were also located in strategic random
sections of the city. The strategic location of the schemes was good because it enabled the
research team to generate diverse responses thus improving the credibility of the findings. With
regards to Parameter Number 2, SANA’s reason for choosing the four schemes was based on the
premise that the two schemes were performing really well, one just average, while the forth
one’s performance was abysmal. For these reasons they were more interested in knowing the
underlying reasons behind the difference in performance in order to improve their intervention
tactics. On Parameter Number 3, the primary goal of Research Question Number One was to
investigate the relationship between CP and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the
management committee of the schemes. For this reason consideration had to be given to schemes
which had been in operation for a significant length of time. Additionally, the third research
question concerned factors which affect the performance of the schemes. In this regard, we
sampled schemes which were performing well and those which were perceived to be performing
poorly.
3.6 Data Quality Management Issues
Previous studies point out that there are many errors which may arise in a research
process. According to Babbie (2004) potential errors might occur during data collection, methods
used to store the data collected or during the time of data analysis. Data quality management
should, therefore, be observed during the entire research process. Data quality management
refers to the establishment and deployment of roles, responsibilities and policies and procedures
concerning data acquisition, maintenance, dissemination and disposition (Babbie, 2004). The

73
following techniques were employed to enhance data quality in both the qualitative and
quantitative phase.
3.6.1 Qualitative Data
One way in which data quality can be compromised is when researchers or their
assistants are not properly trained (Alkin et al, 1979). To ensure data quality in this inquiry the
research teams were adequately trained on data collection and storage techniques. This applied to
both the qualitative and quantitative phases. The P1who moderated most of the FGDs have taken
research methods courses at the University of South Florida which prepared him for the task.
Moreover audio tapes were used for the FGDs. These were later transcribed verbatim and
formatted before analysis. All FGDs were conducted in privacy thus respecting the
confidentiality of all the participants. Notes and audio tapes did not contain any personal
identifies of the participants and were kept in locked filing cabinets.
According to Sikes (2000) one major threat to qualitative data is the fear that at some
point participants lied and researchers used the information as facts. To enhance credibility and
reliability of the qualitative findings in this inquiry, triangulation and prolonged engagement
techniques were employed (Denzin, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Triangulation included both
investigator triangulation (i.e. using different personnel to moderate the FGDs) and data
triangulation (i.e. the FGDs was composed of a variety of people that is women groups, water
management committees and water consumer groups). By using triangulation the research team
was able to cross-check statements made by all the participants for similarities and differences.
By applying the prolonged engagement technique all the FGDs took place within a three-month
period. This enabled the team to informally interact further with the participants thus gaining
more insightful information about factors affecting the performance of the schemes. The research

74
team also made sure that there was fair representation of both women and men among FGD
participants. In fact this is the reason why we included women groups as a unit within the FGD
participants. Table 3.3 shows the number of women groups who participated in the FGDs.
The application of the aforementioned techniques enabled the research team avoid what
Denzin and Licoln (2005) have called a crisis of representation. This implies the difficulty in
capturing the phenomena or attributes we intended to via text. Indeed we are confident to assert
that the qualitative findings in this study have theoretical generalizability (Ryan et al, 2002) and
empirical applicability (Babbie, 2004).
3.6.2 Quantitative Data
In quantitative studies validity of the findings is always an issue. This study is no
exception. The concept of validity refers to the extent to which the information collected
accurately depicts the phenomena being studied (Babbie, 2004). One can argue that it is closely
linked to how the research was conceptualized (i.e. variables operationalization), data collection
procedures and the techniques used to interpret the findings.
To ensure validity in the quantitative part of this study, the research questions were
modeled with the aid of current literature dwelling on CP in water service delivery. This
assertion is reinforced by the theoretical framework shown in chapter one and the related
literature reviewed in chapter two. Furthermore, the research questions (RQ1 & RQ2) which
were mostly addressed by the survey data were evaluated and re-adjusted accordingly by experts
in the field. Similarly, the variables pursued in the questionnaire survey are complemented by
what is contained in current literature. Furthermore a simple random sampling technique was
used in collecting the survey data. The research team used the latest Kenya Independent Voter
register (2012) to draw a sample for the study. This document contains the names of all

75
registered voters in Kenya who by law must be over the age of eighteen and must possess a
national identification card (Laws of Kenya, The New Constitution, 2010). Voting is mandatory
for all persons over the age of eighteen in Kenya (Laws of Kenya, The New Constitution, 2010).
This meant that everybody over the age of eighteen living within the location of the sampled
schemes had an equal chance of being surveyed for the study. Put together the rigorous process
helped in solving the potential errors such as instrumentation problems or researchers bias.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) observe that instrumentation issues or researchers bias are major
problems in quantitative analysis. The former occurs when the results from a measure lack the
appropriate level of consistency or inadequate results. The latter happens when the research
personnel favors one technique over another technique thus resulting in statistical testing errors.
In this study logistic regression was employed in answering research question one and two. So
far it is considered as one of the best techniques in analyzing studies where the dependent
variable has a binary outcome. This implies that those analysis where the assumptions of linear
regression are not valid, i.e. where the relationship between x and y is nonlinear, error terms are
heteroscedastic and lastly error terms are not normally distributed (Cabrera, 1994; Cox & Snell,
1989; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Overall, this study followed the scientific method in
sampling the participants. The variables analyzed are anchored on those formulated in previous
peer reviewed articles. The logistic regression analysis used in answering research question one
and two is considered one of the most rigorous analytical techniques in studies similar to this.
That is, those analysis where the dependent variable has a binary outcome.
3.7 Ethical Consideration
Before undertaking this study the principal investigator applied for an approval with
University of South Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). An IRB is a board charged with

76
protecting the rights and welfare of people involved in research. IRB reviews plans for research
involving human subjects. In the United States of America, institutions that accept funding from
the federal governments are required to have an IRB charged with reviewing all research
involving human subjects (see, Appendix A). This requirement is mandatory for all studies even
if the research is not funded by the federal government. In this study, University of South Florida
Institutional Review Board ensured that it was carried out in accordance to policies which are
designed to protect humans participating in a research.
Moreover while in the field all the participants were asked to voluntarily sign an
informed consent form prior to participation (see, Appendix B, C, D, E, F, G, H, & I). The
survey informed consent form included the principal investigator information, the study
objectives and its benefits, confidentiality issues and any related risks. The FGD informed
consent form also addressed the same issues. Throughout the data collection period the research
team continually re-evaluated sampling designs and procedures for ethical and scientific
appropriateness (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2007). All the data collected were confidentially stored and
have only been used in this dissertation study. Nobody was coerced into participating in this
study.

4. EMPIRICAL EFFECTS OF CP ON BENEFICIARY SATISFACTION WITH
THE WORK OF THE WATER SCHEMES’ MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES

This chapter presents the findings for Research Question One. The question is concerned
with the relationship between participation and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the
water management committees in the four schemes. Consumer satisfaction with the work of the
management committees can be used as a reflection on these projects effectiveness in regards to
water service delivery in Kisumu informal settlements. Included in the findings are household
demographic characteristics, descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables,
bivariate and multivariate logistic regression results. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
how the results reported here relate to previous studies.
Overall, the results from both logistic regression models indicate an association between
participatory variables and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water management
committees. A measure for consumer satisfaction was attained in the questionnaire survey item
40, by the question “Overall, how satisfied are you and your household with the management
work of the committee responsible for managing your main source of water?” The respondents’
answers were regressed against a series of participatory indicators. These were questions which
originated from the questionnaire items. The findings reveal that households which were actively
participating in the schemes’ activities tended to be more satisfied with the work of the water
management committees. In other words, the management committees were doing everything
possible to ensure that the schemes were continually supplying water, beneficiary complaints
were effectively resolved thus making them more willing to provide labor to the schemes. Most

78
importantly, beneficiaries were also more willing to continue paying for water drawn from the
schemes or intervene against pipe vandalism in their community whenever they encountered it.
4.1 Selected Sample Demographic Characteristics
Table 4.1 contains a summary of the economic and demographic characteristics of the
sampled households. As can be seen in the table over 65 percent of households sampled have
lived in the settlements for more than two years. Most participants, therefore, had a clear sense of
how the schemes operated. This information is consistent with the FGD data culled from the
Introductory Questions (See, Appendix I). The water consumer group FGD participants observed
that majority of the beneficiaries they represent had lived in the settlements for a significant
period of time. Furthermore, majority of them have relied on the community managed water
scheme as their main source of water.
Household size in the settlement averages between 4 and 5 people. These consist mostly
of father, mother, children and sometimes relatives. This is a common characteristic in the
African urban space. Most often, young people move to urban centers with their families in
search of jobs. Unfortunately they end up living in informal settlements/neighborhoods when
they are unable to gain fulltime employment. In some isolated cases, supplementary data
gathered through observation and transect walks reveal that there are polygamous families and
orphaned children present in the four settlements. Some of the orphan children live together as
families and most of depend on food assistance from well-wishers.
Level of education varies across the settlements. Primary and secondary education is the
peak level. Specifically, Paga leads at 56 percent with respondents reporting their highest level of
education as primary. For secondary level education, Obunga leads at 44 percent while Paga
come at a distant fourth with 27 percent of the respondents reporting as having achieved

79
secondary level education. Most of the residents in the settlements are poor, which accounts, at
least in part, for the low level of education. However, Asengo seems to be an exception with
regards to education level. Sixteen percent of respondents in Asengo reported their highest level
of education as University. This corresponds with monthly income where Asengo has the lowest
number of people reporting their monthly income as below Kshs 20,000 (equivalent USD 230).
Generally, in Kenya just like in any other country around the world income is highly correlated
to education level.
Table 4.1 Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Sampled Household

Demographic Characteristics

Wandiege

Obunga

Asengo

Paga

Total number of households surveyed 79 80 79 79
% of respondents who are female 69 72 59 84
% of respondents who are male 32 28 41 16
Average households size 5 4 4 4
Number of females living in a household 223 157 187 175
Number of males living in a household 197 163 168 156
% of respondents highest level of education no formal education 6 8 3 11
% of respondents highest level of education primary 31 9 24 56
% of respondents highest level of education secondary 38 44 34 27
% of respondents highest level of education diploma 23 32 23 4
% of respondents highest level of education university 3 8 16 3
% of household main source of income Wage employment 20 28 23 37
% of household main source of income Artisan/Blacksmith 1 11 0 8
% of household main source of income salaried employment 28 23 44 16
% of household main source of income is trading/small business 51 38 33 39
% of household monthly income below Kshs 20,000 (USD 230) 79 89 68 79
% of household monthly expenditure below Kshs 20,000 ($ 230) 90 94 87 71
% of respondents number of years lived in the settlement > 2yrs 67 65 77 85

80
Being in low income areas, most residents in the locale of the studied schemes depend
on meagre income-generating activities. As compared to other sources of income listed in the
survey, majority of the residents depend on trading and small business as their main source of
income. Percentages of household whose main source of income are trading and small businesses
are reported as follows, 51 percent in Wandiege, 38 percent in Obunga, 33 percent in Asengo
and 39 percent in Paga. Trading and small business include activities such as women selling
second-hand clothing, vegetables, charcoal and fish mongering, and men operating small kiosks,
video shows and welding workshops.
In the developing world, water vending is an activity which is most often carried out by
women (Kjellen, 2000; Kjellen & Mc Granahan, 2006; Whittington et al, 1989). As can be seen
from the table, the respondents were predominantly women. Specifically, in Wandiege 69
percent of the participants were women while 32 percent were men. Similar patterns are reflected
in Obunga (72 percent), Asengo (59 percent) and Paga (84 percent).
To provide baseline data and for control purposes, it is important to note that there are
different sources of water in the settlements. This is illustrated in the study setting section. The
selection of respondents’ surveyed was done randomly. This meant that regardless of the
respondent’s main source of water everyone living in the settlements locale had the same chance
of being chosen to participant in the survey.
Table 4.2 presents a summary of household’s main source of water. As can be seen from
the table, in Wandiege 65 percent of households depend on community managed water kiosk, 48
percent in Obunga, 37 percent in Asengo and 75 percent in Paga. Those who rely on piped
individual community managed are however few. In Wandiege 29 percent of households depend
on piped individual community managed water schemes, 28 percent in Obunga, 42 percent in

81
Asengo and none in Paga. Probably financial reasons contribute to this observation. Most people
in the settlement cannot afford individual water connection to their homes.
Table 4.2 Household Main Source of Water

% of household who reported main source of
water as

Wandiege
n:79

Obunga
n:80

Asengo
n:79

Paga
n:79

Total
n:317

Community managed water kiosk

56
Piped individual community managed 29 28 42 0 25
Private vendor 4 3 5 0 3
Borehole 3 13 0 6 5
Rain Harvesting/roof catchment 0 1 3 0 1
Well 0 9 4 8 5
Spring 0 0 10 5 4
River 0 0 0 6 2

4.2 Description of Dependent and Independent Variables
In the following section descriptive statistics of the dependent (beneficiary satisfaction
with the work of the management committee) and independent variables (participation) are
presented.
4.2.1 Beneficiary Satisfaction with the Work of the Management Committee (DV)
Table 4.3 contains the descriptive statistics of households’ response to the question, how
satisfied are you and your household with the management work of the committee responsible for
managing your main source of water. Overall, the table indicates that 57.4 percent of the
households surveyed reported being satisfied with the committee responsible for managing main
source of water. However, there are some variations amongst the individual schemes.

82
Table 4.3 Household Responses to the Question “how satisfied are you and your household with
the management work of the committee responsible for managing your main source of water”

% of household who reported being

Wandiege
n:79

Obunga
n:80

Asengo
n:79

Paga
n:79

Total
n:317

Satisfied

73.8

58.2

16.5

57.4

Not Satisfied

26.3

41.8

83.5

42.6

4.2.2 Participation (IV)
Different analysts have suggested several indicators which can be used to measure
participation. Most of these indicators as employed by previous studies have already been
covered in the literature review section. Yacoob and Walker (1991) used upfront cash
contribution and labor as primary indicators of participation in development projects. Manikutty
(1997) suggested three indicators which can be used to ascertain participation. These are
beneficiary voice in choice of the water system, resource contribution and the level of women
involvement in management committees. Sara and Katz (1998) specify beneficiary willingness to
pay and contribution in decision making as a basis for operationalizing participation. Isham et al
(2001) measured participation in terms of cash contribution, labor provision and beneficiaries
taking responsibility in terms of operation and maintenance.

83
Cash contribution has extensively been used as a measure of participation. However, it
has been criticized by scholars such as Agarwal (2001), Cooke et al (2001) and Schouten et al
(2003). Specifically, Agarwal (2001) has classified cash contribution as a form of low level
participation. This is because; in most development projects beneficiaries are hardly given a
choice to make decisions once they contribute money. Anti-liberalization proponents such as
Peet, 2003 and Roy, 2002 have also criticized cash contribution purely on the basis that the poor
should not pay for water. These arguments have prompted scholars like Prokoby (2005) to
suggest other indicators which can be used alongside cash contribution in ascertaining
participation. These are (1) meeting attendance, (2) contribution in meetings, and (3) beneficiary
involvement in managerial work.
Building on Prokoby’s (2005) work, this study employed the following indicators of
participation;

(1) Provision of paid labor to the scheme.
(2) Payment of water bills in time.
(3) Willingness to pay water bills in time.
(4) Willingness to contribute money/ time for an expansion of the community managed
water scheme,
(5) Willingness to intervene in case of pipe vandalism.
(6) Attendance to public meeting where water and sanitation issues are discussed, and
(7) Complaints about water supply and quality issues.
Table 4.4 contains the descriptive statistics for household level measures of participation
used in the modeling.

84
Table 4.4 Participatory Indicators Used in the Models

% of households who reported

Wandiege
n:79

Obunga
n:80

Asengo
n:79

Paga
n:79

Total
n:317

Having provided paid/unpaid labor to the
community managed water scheme

61.3

34.2

1.3

38.5
Always paying their water bills in time 93.7 81.3 83.5 82.3 85.2

Still willing to continue paying their water
bills in time

93.7

82.5

84.8

85.5

Willing to contribute money or time for an
expansion of the community managed
water scheme

67.1

83.5

68.5

Willing to intervene if they experience
pipe vandalism in their community

68.4

82.5

97.5

15.2

65.9

Having attended a public meeting in the
last two years where water and sanitation
service provisioning issues were discussed

60.8

17.7

47.3

Have or any member of their household
made a complaint about water
supply/quality issues over the last three
years

50.6

37.5

49.4

54.6

Presented next are the results of the univariate and multivariate logistic regression
models.
4.3 The Models and Results
The question being explored in both the models is what is the relationship between CP
and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water management committees in the four
schemes? The dependent variable (DV) and the independent variables (IV) originated from direct
questions in the questionnaire survey. The DV is household satisfaction with the work of the

85
management committee responsible for managing their main source of water. The responses
were coded as 1 if a respondent said “satisfied” and 0 if a respondent said “not satisfied”.
The IVs are LABOUR, PAYBILL, WILLTOPAY, INTERVENE, ATTMEET,
CONTRIBUTION and COMPLAINT. LABOUR refers to whether the respondent has ever
provided paid or unpaid labor to the community managed water scheme in his settlement.
PAYBILL refers to whether the respondents pay their water bills in time. WILLTOPAY refers to
whether the respondent is still willing to continue paying their water bills in time. INTERVENE
refers to whether the respondents is willing to intervene if they ever experience water pipe
vandalism in their community. ATTMEET refers to whether the respondents have ever attended a
public meeting where water and sanitation service provisioning issues were discussed.
CONTRIBUTION refers to respondent’s willingness to contribute money or time for an
expansion of the community managed water scheme. COMPLAINT defined as whether the
respondent or any member of his/her household has ever made a complaint about their water
supply/quality issues over the past three years.
4.3.1 Bivariate Logit Analysis
Table 4.5 presents the results of the bivariate model. All the independent variables are
significantly associated with the dependent variable (p = 0.01). Specifically for LABOUR the
results indicate that the odds of being satisfied with the work of the management committee is
6.2 times higher for households that had provided paid or unpaid labor to the community
operated water scheme. For PAYBILL the result shows that the satisfaction level of household
with the management work of the committee responsible for managing main source of water was
2.3 times higher among households who always paid their water bills in time.

86
The same trend is evident in variables WILLTOPAY, INTERVENE, ATTMEET,
CONTRIBUTION and COMPLAINT. Among the aforementioned variables the result for
INTERVENE is quite robust. The findings indicate that the odds of being satisfied with the work
of the management committee is 7.4 times higher for households who were willing to intervene
if they ever experienced pipe vandalism in their community.
For CONTRIBUTION the findings indicate that the odds of being satisfied with the work
of the water management committee is 5.4 times higher for those households who showed
willingness to contribute money or time for the expansion of the community managed water
scheme. Contribution of money and time has frequently featured in CP literature as an indicator
of high level participation. Another notable variable in the model is COMPLAINT. Recall this
variable was earlier defined as whether the respondent or any other member of his/her household
have ever made a complaint about their water supply/quality issues over the past three years. The
results for this variable indicate that the satisfaction of households with the management work of
the committee responsible for managing main source of water reduced by 72% if the household
did not complain about water supply/quality issues in the past 3 years compared to those that
complained.
4.3.2 Multivariate Logit Analysis
The base equation tested in the multivariate analysis was as follows
Logit (SATISFACTION) = β0 + β1 (LABOUR) + β2 (PAYBILL) + β3 (WILLTOPAY) + β4
(INTERVENE) + β5 (ATTMEET) + β6 (CONTRIBUTION) + β7 (COMPLAINT).

Where Dependent variable

Logit (SATISFACTION) = Satisfied or not satisfied with the management committee (0 or 1)

Independent variables

Labor = provided paid or unpaid labor to community water scheme (0 or 1)

Paybill = payment of water bills in time (0 or 1)

Willtopaybill = Still willing to continue paying water bills in time (0 or 1)

Intervene = willing to intervene if ever experience pipe vandalism (0 or 1)

Attmeet = Ever attended public meeting where water and sanitation issues are discussed (0 or 1)

Contribution = Willingness to contribute money or time for an expansion of community (0 or 1)
managed water scheme

Complaint = Ever complaint about water supply/quality issues over the past 3 years (0 or 1)

Reported in Table 4.6 are the results of the multivariate model. The model fit was good
with a significant chi-square value. The model indicated that there is an association between
some participatory variables and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the committee
responsible for managing their main source of water.
The five independent variables which were significantly associated with the dependent
variable LABOUR, INTERVENE, ATTMEET, CONTRIBUTION and COMPLAINT.
For LABOUR the results suggested that holding other variables constant, the odds of
being satisfied with the work of the management committees was 2.4 times higher for
households who had provided paid or unpaid labor to the community managed water scheme.
For INTERVENE the results indicated that holding other variables constant, the odds of
being satisfied with the work of the management committee was 2.6 times higher for respondents
who were willing to intervene if they ever experienced pipe vandalism in their community. The
same trend was seen in variables ATTMEET, CONTRIBUTION and COMPLAINT.

88
Table 4.5 Bivariate Logit Results for Beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the Management Committees as Function of Various
Participatory Variables (n = 317)
Model Statistics

Independent
Variables

Log-odds (β)

Wald

Odds ratio (е
β
)

95% CI for odds ratio

Nagelkerke R
Square

Percentage
Predicted
Correct

Labour

1.835

44.007***

6.264

3.643 – 10.771

0.203

67.2

Paybill

0.643

7.199***

2.374

1.262 – 4.465

0.031

61.5

Willtopay

0.842

6.862***

2.322

1.236 – 4.360

0.030

61.5

Intervene

2.007

56.323***

7.443

4.406 – 12.572

0.245

73.2

Attmeet

1.716

45.996***

5.564

3.388 – 9.136

0.2

69.1

Contribution

1.697

41.377***

5.456

3.254 – 9.150

0.179

Complaint

-1.270

27.230***

0.281

0.174 – 0.453

0.117

64
Notes ***Significant at the 0.01 level

89
Table 4.6 Multivariate Logit Results for Beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the Management Committees as Function of
Various Participatory Variables (n = 317)

Independent Variables

Log-odds (β)

Wald

Odds ratio (е
β
)

95% CI for odds ratio

Labour

0.899

7.308**

2.456

1.280 – 4.712

Paybill

0.078

0.020

1.081

0.370 – 3.158

Willtopay

0.808

2.082

2.243

0.749 – 6.717

Intervene

0.966

7.966**

2.627

1.343 – 5.139

Attmeet

1.085

10.959**

2.960

1.557 – 5.629

Contribution

0.624

3.125*

1.867

0.934 – 3.731
Compalint

-1.480 21.510** 1 0.228 0.122 – 0.425

Notes **Significant at 0.05 level
*Significant at 0.10 level
Nagelkerke R Square 0.449

90
For ATTMEET the results indicated that holding other variables constant, the odds of
being satisfied with the management committee was 2.9 times higher for respondents who had
attended water and sanitation meeting in the last three years. Meetings provide a venue for
raising complaints about water issues. One assertion is that households often attend meetings
when they feel that the management is addressing their concern about water issues.
4.4 Discussion of Findings
A principle finding in this chapter is that there is an association between specific
participatory variables and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the management committee
responsible for managing main source of water. This implies that participation influences
beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the management team. A high level of beneficiary satisfaction
with the management is a significant variable in water resource management because it can be
used as a proxy for reflection on the projects effectiveness with regards to service delivery. In
fact, Prokoby (2005) reinforces this assertion by conceptualizing project effectiveness through
the following five key variables; 1) beneficiary satisfaction with the service provided by the
management, 2) tariff payments, 3) equal access, 4) time savings in water collection, and 5)
consumers belief in the system. Nance and Ortolano (2007) also view participation as a double
edge sword. First, it enhances beneficiary satisfaction with the service which in turn leads to
better performance in water service delivery sector.
Rogers and Hall (2003:27) provided a broad list of principles for effective water service
governance as follows; i) Open and Transparent, ii) Inclusive and Communicative, iii) Coherent
and Integrative, iv) Equitable and Ethical, v) Accountable, vi) Efficient and vii) Responsive and
Sustainable. Openness and transparency implies that water institutions should operate in an open
manner by using a language that is accessible and understandable to the people. Policy decisions

91
should be done in a transparent way with all users aboard. Inclusive and communicative means
that the effectiveness and success in water service delivery depend on beneficiary participation in
policy formulation from conception to implementation and final delivery. Coherent and
integrative means, policies and action should be coherent. Coherency requires political
leadership to ensure a consistent approach within a complex system. Equitable and ethical mean
that water systems should be guided by ethical principles with are based on the rule of law.
Accountable means, rules and consequences for violation should be clearly spelt out. A well-
built arbitration system should be in place to ensure that conflicts are peacefully resolved.
Efficiency means that, the economic cost of water should be balanced against social, political and
environmental costs. Responsive and sustainable implies that the managing institution should be
built with an eye towards long-term sustainability. Water governance should strive to serve the
future generations as well as present users.
One can argue that the above listed principles can be better accomplished in water
systems where there is a well-structured functioning management team. The best way to measure
whether the management team is optimally functioning is through beneficiary satisfaction with
their overall work. As the logistic regression results suggest, a high percentage of beneficiaries
who were participating in the schemes activities reported being satisfied with the work of the
water management team. This implies that the water schemes are effectively operating with
regards to water service delivery in the informal settlements. The participatory variables worth
highlighting in this regard are labor and meeting attendance. The bivariate model reveal that the
odds of being satisfied with the work of the management committee is high among households
who have provided paid or unpaid labor to the community operated scheme compared to those
who have not. An argument can be made that provision of paid or unpaid labor are important

92
variables for project effectiveness. This is because for water to continue flowing, the system
needs adequate maintenance. In urban informal settlements where there is limited structural
planning, maintaining water projects require a great deal of unskilled labor. These include
activities such as ensuring that water tanks are regularly cleaned, tracing breaks and leaks,
keeping the pipelines clear and covering exposed pipes (Kleemeier, 2000). The more households
show their trust in the management committee the more they will be willing to provide free or
cheap labor as shown by the bivariate model.
In addition, both the bivariate and multivariate models also indicate a strong association
between meeting attendance and household satisfaction with the management. Households who
report having attended community water meetings tend to be more satisfied with the
management than households who have never attended community water meetings. One can
argue that meeting attendance can be recipe for project effectiveness from three different angles.
One speculation in literature is that households who regularly attend meetings will most often
report defects whenever they occur (Paul, 1987). They are also more likely to use meetings as a
venue to voice their opinions and call for improvements. Most importantly they will also be more
knowledgeable on how the management spends revenue collected from water sale. The more
beneficiaries take such action the more the project will become effective in term of technical
performance and improved service delivery.
Beneficiary satisfaction with the management committee is not only good for
effectiveness in water service delivery. As suggested by different analysts, it can also aid in the
establishment of sustainable community operated water schemes. According to WASH technical
report (1994) sustainable projects are seen as those which are able to maintain a flow of benefits
for a significant specified period of time after external funding stops. In such projects

93
sustainability is evaluated based on the following seven criteria. 1) Functionality of the
management committees (that is whether the management committees periodically meet and
maintain constant support and communication with the beneficiaries). 2) Whether most of the
beneficiaries covered by the project are using the facility (often 50% usage is considered
adequate for establishing sustainability. 3) Functionality of the facilities (for example 75% of
the water systems should be delivering water at any given time of the assessment for it to be
considered sustainable). 4) Existence of a vibrant relationship between the management and
other officials. 5) Availability of technical repair operators and spare parts. 6) Existence of
partnership between the facility and government agencies. 7) Existence of adequate financial
resources.
Similarly, the World Health Organization handbook (WHO, 1994) views sustainability as
the creation and maintenance of conditions that ensure adequate technical performance and
financial success of projects. The handbook also calls for the necessity of information sharing
between the community and agencies as prerequisites for sustainability. The UN’s Agenda 21
definition of sustainability is broad. It views sustainable development as a way of reversing
poverty by giving the poor more access to the resource they need to live. Agenda 21’s definition
of sustainability includes economic development, social development and environmental
protection.
Harvey and Reed (2007) suggest that most of these principles of sustainability are
attainable in societies/communities/schemes where there is a functioning system/overseeing
body. In fact this is rarely recognized in existing literature apart from the WASH (1994) report
which documents that sustainability of water systems is mostly dependent on the performance of
institutions. In this analysis the overseeing institution is the management team since the schemes

94
are entirely managed by the community. According to WASH (1994) a functioning management
team can help water schemes avoid issues which may impede long term sustainability especially
after the project’s completion. These include issues such as technical hitches which lead to
wastage or revenue loss. In this regard one can argue that consumer satisfaction is a variable
which policy makers can use when reflecting on items which augments sustainability.
The findings reported here are consistent with those revealed by previous studies. Some
of these studies show correlation or associations between participation and better outcome in
water supply projects (see in Chapter Two, e.g. Briscoe & Ferranti, 1988; Isham & Kahkonen,
2001; Manikutty, 1997; Narayan, 1995; Prokopy, 2005; Sara &Katz, 1998). In this study, the
results indicate that there is an association between participation and beneficiary satisfaction with
the work of the management committee. Consumer satisfaction as the results suggest is essential
for the projects effectiveness and in aiding long-term sustainability. Lockwood (2003) argued
that sustainability is not linked only to the existence of specific conditions and factors before and
during construction of water supply or sanitation system, but also to specific factors well beyond
the end of construction.

5. EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CP AND THE PRODUCTION OF
CLEAN POTABLE WATER SUPPLY IN THE INFORMAL SETTLEMENT

In this chapter, quantitative techniques are employed to examine the link between CP and
the production of clean water supply in the settlements. The primary concern is with Research
Question Two: What are the contributions (positive or negative) of CP to the production of clean
potable water supply in informal settlements. It is hypothesized that households that rely on
community-managed water schemes and at least attend WATSAN meetings practice better water
handling hygiene in the settlement. In other words CP contributes positively to the production of
clean potable water supply in the informal settlement as evidence by households’ overall
perceptions and water handling behaviors. The chapter is divided into three sections. Part One
presents the descriptions of the dependent and independent variables analyzed. Part Two presents
the results of the chi-square tests on relationships between the two independent and the five
dependent variables. Part Three presents logistic regression analysis results of each of the two
independent variables regressed against the five dependent variables. Part four is a summary and
discussion of the overall findings.
5.1 Description of the Dependent and Independent Variables
The literature review section in chapter Two sheds light on how previous studies have
operationalized participation. In the present study, participation assumed the independent
variables (IV) status and was measured by two actions. These are (1) Household main source of
water (Remember there are other sources of water in the informal settlements apart from the

96
four community managed water schemes) and (2) Attendance to community water and sanitation
meeting in the last two years.
The dependent variable DV, willingness to practice better water handling hygiene, was
measured by the following five indicators:
1. Household satisfaction level with the smell of water: Percentage of households that report
being satisfied on not satisfied with the smell of their main source of water.
2. Water storage containers cleaned and covered: Percentage of households who clean and
cover or not clean and cover their water storage containers.
3. Doctor’s office/clinic visits in the last six months and diagnosed with the following water
borne related diseases (Cholera, Typhoid, Scabies or Bilharzia): Percentage of households
who have visited a doctors clinic or not visited a doctors clinic in the last six month and
diagnosed with water borne related disease.
4. Willingness to protect areas around water points in their community from contamination:
Percentage of households reporting willing to protect or not protect areas around water points
from contamination.
5. Perception of current access to water: Percentage of households who report current access
to water in their community being accessible or not accessible.
5.2 Results of the Relationship between Independent and Dependent Variable
The five unique measures of the dependent variables are each modeled individually
against each of the two independent variables using chi-square test. The primary goal was to find
out if willingness to practice better water handling hygiene as conceptualized by the five unique
measures is associated with participation. This goal hinges on the hypothesis that households
who rely on community managed water schemes as their main source of water and attend

97
WATSAN meetings will practice better water handling hygiene in the settlements. The results
are presented in tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11. Note the numbers in
parentheses are total number of respondents in each category.
Table 5.1 contains the chi-square test result on the association between household
satisfaction with the smell of water (DV) and main water source (IV). The computed chi-square
test indicate that the association is statistically significant at the p = 0.01 level. According to the
table, 61% of households whose main water source was community managed kiosk were satisfied
with the smell of water compared to with 39% of households that were not satisfied. Similarly,
87.2% of households whose main water source was piped individual community managed
reported being satisfied with the smell of water compared to 12.8% that were not. On the other
spectrum only a meagre 37.5% of households who draw water from the well reported being
satisfied with the smell compared to 62.5% who were not. The same trend can be observed
among those households who rely on spring and river as their main source of water. In fact only
40% of those household who rely on river as main source of water indicated being satisfied with
the smell of their water compared with 60% that were not. Further scrutiny of the data shows
that, of the 317 households surveyed, a total of 176 who reported being stratified with the smell
of their water rely on community managed schemes.
In Table 5.2 the chi-square test results on the association between households satisfaction
with the smell of water (DV) and attendance to WATSAN meetings is significant at p = 0.01.
Specifically, as showcased in the table 82.7% of households that reported having attended
WATSAN meeting were satisfied with the smell of water compared with 50.3% of households
that did not. Similarly, 49.7% of households that did not attend WATSAN meeting were not
satisfied with the smell of water compared with 17.3% of households that attended.

98
Table 5.3 indicates that the association between cleaning and covering of water storage
containers (DV) and main source of water (IV) is strong. The statistically significance is at p =
0.01with an associated chi-square value of 37.572. As the table reveals 97.7% of households
whose main water source was community managed water kiosk carried out cleaning and covering
of water storage containers compared with only 2.3% of households that did not. Along the same
vein, all households who reported main source of water being piped individual community
managed cleaned and covered their water storage containers. These results indicate a somewhat
different behavioral pattern with those households who rely on other sources of water such as
borehole, spring and river. Indeed, as can be seen from the table, the percentage of households
who report not cleaning and covering their water containers are slightly high for borehole
(23.5%), well (18.8%), and spring (8.3%). This finding is significant as several studies show that
access to an improved water source does not always ensure use of clean water. In fact it has been
noted that microbiological quality of water in household storage containers is frequently lower
than at the source (Lindskog & Lindskog, 1988). This indicates that water contamination often
occurs during collection, transportation and storage.
In Table 5.4 the chi-square test results indicate a statistically insignificant association
between cleaning and covering water storage containers and attending WATSAN meetings. The
p value is 0.074 and the accompanying chi-square value is very low at 3.196. However, in table
5.5 the test shows a statistical significant pattern (p = 0.048) between being diagnosed with water
borne related disease (DV) and main source of water (IV). According to the table, only 33.9% of
households whose main source was community managed water kiosk visited a doctor’s clinic
compared with 66.1% who did not. Similarly, a staggering 67.9% of households who rely on
piped individual community managed as main source of water report not visiting a doctor’s

99
clinic compared to 32.1 who did. The statistics appears to be different at the other end of the
table. In particular, households who rely on other sources seem to be visiting doctor’s clinic
more than their counterparts who rely on community managed schemes. In these categories those
who rely on river as the main water source is leading. That is 80% of households whose main
water source was river reported visiting a doctor’s clinic with water borne related disease
compared with only 20% of households that did not. This is followed by spring with 66.7%
visiting a doctor’s clinic compared with 33.3% that did not, borehole 47.1% compared with
52.9% and lastly well at 43.8% compared with 56.3% respectively.
The chi-square p value in table 5.6 equals 0.539. This is an indication that there is a
statistically insignificant relationship (p = 0.01) between visiting a doctor’s clinic with water
borne related disease and attendance to WATSAN meeting.
Moving on to table 5.7, the results here confirms the existence of an association between
willingness to protect areas around water points from contamination (DV) and main source of
water (IV). The statistical significance of this relationship is 0.003. This means that there is a
99% probability that willingness to protect areas around water points from contamination is
related to households’ water source. Specifically, as can be seen from the table, 98.9% of
households who reported main water source as being community managed water kiosk were
willing to protect areas around water points from contamination. Among these households, only
1.1% reported unwillingness to protect areas around water points from contamination.
Similarly, 98.7% of households whose main source of water was piped individual community
managed were willing to protect areas around water points compared to 1.3% of households that
were not willing in this category. Protecting areas around water points from contamination
includes activities such as removing rubbish around water points or discouraging defecation

100
around water sources. As the result suggests those who rely on other source of waters seems less
willing to take initiatives which promote cleanliness around water points. However, overall the
results in table 5.7 are still encouraging. This is because the percentages of those who rely on
other sources and are willing to protect areas around water points are still high compared to those
who are not.
Inspection on the relationship between willingness to protect areas around water points
from contamination and attendance to WATSAN meetings in table 5.8 shows no sufficient
evidence. With the p value of 0.811 the associated chi-square statistic of 0.057 the results suggest
that this relationship could have occurred only by chance.
Of prime interest in table 5.9 was whether there was a relationship between household
perception to current access to water (DV) and main source of water (IV). The chi-square value
of 36.013 and p = 0.01 indicates that a significant relationship does exist between the two
variables. Specifically, 65% of households whose main water source was community managed
water kiosk perceived that they were accessible to clean potable water compared with 35% that
indicated they were inaccessible. Along the same lines, 93.6% of households whose main source
was piped individual community managed perceived that they were accessible to clean portable
water compared with only 6.41% that indicated they were inaccessible.
A further perusal of table 5.9 reveals a different story among those households whose
main source of water are private vendor, borehole, well and spring. In this category, only 33 %
of households whose main water source were private vendor perceived that they were accessible
to clean portable compared with 66.7% that did not. This was followed by spring (50%),
borehole (52.9%) and well (62.5%) respectively.

101
Table 5.1 Relationship between Household Satisfaction with the Smell of Water (DV) and Main Water Source (IV)
respondents main water source
Community
managed
kiosk
Piped
individual
community
managed
Private
vendor
Borehole Rain
Harvesting
Well Spring River Total

Water
smell
satisfying

Yes

(108)
61

(68)
87.2

(6)
66.7

(10)
58.8

(2)
66.7

(6)
37.5

(6)
50

(2)
40

(208)
65.6

(69)
39

(10)
12.8

(3)
33.3

(7)
41.2

(1)
33.3

(10)
62.5

(6)
50

(3)
60

(109)
34.4

Total

(177)
100

(78)
100

(9)
100

(17)
100

(3)
100

(16)
100

(12)
100

(5)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 26.446 d.f. = 7 p = 0.000* n = 317

Table 5.2 Relationship between Household Satisfaction with the Smell of Water (DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV)
ever attended water and sanitation meeting
Yes No Total

Water smell satisfying
Yes

(124)
82.7
(84)
50.3
(208)
65.6

(26)
17.3

(83)
49.7

(109)
34.4

Total
(150)
100
(169)
100
(317)
100
Peason Chi-square = 36.694 d.f. = 1 p = 0.000* n=317

102
Table 5.3 Relationship between Cleaning and Covering Water Storage Containers (DV) and Main Source of Water (IV)
Respondents main water source
Community
managed
kiosk
Piped
individual
community
managed
Private
vendor
Borehole Rain
Harvesting
Well Spring River Total

Storage
containers
cleaned and
covered

Yes

(173)
97.7

(78)
100

(9)
100

(13)
76.5

(2)
66.7

(13)
81.3

(11)
91.7

(5)
100

(304)
95.9

(4)
2.3

(0)
0

(4)
23.5

(1)
33.3

(3)
18.8

(1)
8.3

(0)
0

(13)
4.1

Total

(177)
100

(78)
100

(9)
100

(17)
100

(3)
100

(16)
100

(12)
100

(5)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 37.572 d.f. = 7 p = 0.000* n = 317

Table 5.4 Relationship between Cleaning and Covering Water Storage Containers (DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV)
ever attended water and sanitation meeting
Yes No Total

Storage containers
cleaned and covered

Yes

(147)
98
(157)
94
(304)
95.9
No

(3)
2
(10)
6
(13)
4.1

Total

(150)
100

(167)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 3.196 d.f. = 1 p = 0.074 n = 317

103
Table 5.5 Relationship between Being Diagnosed with Water Borne Related Disease (DV) and Main Source of Water (IV)
Respondents main water source
Community
managed
kiosk
Piped
individual
community
managed
Private
vendor
Borehole Rain
Harvesting
Well Spring River Total
Visited a
doctors clinic
diagnosed
water borne
disease
related illness

Yes

(60)
33.9

(25)
32.1

(5)
55.6

(8)
47.1

(0)
0

(7)
43.8

(8)
66.7

(4)
80

(117)
36.9

(117)
66.1

(53)
67.9

(4)
44.4

(9)
52.9

(3)
100

(9)
56.3

(4)
33.3

(1)
20

(200)
63.1
Total

(177)
100
(78)
100
(9)
100
(17)
100
(3)
100
(16)
100
(12)
100
(5)
100
(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 14.202 d.f. = 7 p = 0.048* n = 317

Table 5.6 Relationship between Being Diagnosed with Water Borne Related Disease (DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV)
ever attended water and sanitation meeting
Yes No Total

Visited a doctors clinic
diagnosed water borne
disease related illness

Yes

(58)
38.7
(59)
35.3
(117)
36.9
No

(92)
61.3
(108)
64.7
(200)
63.1

Total

(150)
100

(167)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 0.378 d.f. = 1 p = 0.539 n = 317

104
Table 5.7 Relationship between Willingness to Protect Areas around Water Points from Contamination (DV) and Main Source of Water (IV)
Respondents main water source
Community
managed
kiosk
Piped
individual
community
managed
Private
vendor
Borehole Rain
Harvesting
Well Spring River Total

Will to protect
areas around
water from
contamination

Yes

(175)
98.9

(77)
98.7

(9)
100

(14)
82.4

(3)
100

(15)
93.8

(12)
100

(5)
100

(310)
97.8

(2)
1.1

(1)
1.3

(0)
0

(3)
17.6

(0)
0

(1)
6.3

(0)
0

(7)
63.1

Total

(177)
100

(78)
100

(9)
100

(17)
100

(3)
100

(16)
100

(12)
100

(5)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 21.893 d.f. = 7 p = 0.003* n = 317

Table 5.8 Relationship between Willingness to Protect Areas around Water Points from Contamination (DV) and Attendance to WATSAN
Meetings
ever attended water and sanitation meeting
Yes No Total

Will to protect areas
around water from
contamination

Yes

(147)
98
(163)
97.6
(310)
97.8
No

(3)
2
(4)
2.4
(7)
2.2

Total

(150)
100

(167)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 0.057 d.f. = 1 p = 0.811 n = 317

105
Table 5.9 Relationship between Perception on Current Access to Water (DV) and Main Source of Water (IV)
Respondents main water source
Community
managed
kiosk
Piped
individual
community
managed
Private
vendor
Borehole Rain
Harvesting
Well Spring River Total

Perception of
current access
to water

Acc
(115)
65
(73)
93.6
(3)
33.3
(9)
52.9
(2)
66.7
(10)
62.5
(6)
50
(5)
100
(223)
70.3

Not
Acc

(62)
35

(5)
6.4

(6)
66.7

(8)
47.1

(1)
33.3

(6)
37.5

(6)
50

(0)
0

(94)
29.7

Total
(117)
100
(78)
100
(9)
100
(17)
100
(3)
100
(16)
100
(12)
100
(5)
100
(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 36.013 d.f. = 7 p = 0.000* n = 317

Table 5.10 Relationship between Perception on Current Access to Water (DV) and Attendance to WATSAN Meetings (IV)
Ever attended water and sanitation meeting
Yes

No Total

Perception of current
access to water

Accessible

(134)
89.3
(89)
53.3
(223)
70.3
Not accessible

(16)
10.7
(78)
46.3
(94)
29.7

Total

(150)
100

(167)
100

(317)
100
Pearson Chi-square = 49.204 d.f. = 1 p = 0.000* n = 317

106
Table 5.11 Summary of the Empirical Results between CP and Household Willingness to Practice Better Water Handling Hygiene in the
Settlements
Dependent variables (DV) Independent Variables (IV) Results

Water smell satisfying

Main source of water

Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 26.446) Water smell satisfying Attendance to WATSAN meeting Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 36.696) Storage containers cleaned and covered Main source of water Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 37.572) Storage containers cleaned and covered Attendance to WATSAN meetings Not significant at p<0.01 Visited a doctors clinic and diagnosed with water borne related illness Main source of water Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 14.202) Visited a doctors clinic ad diagnosed with water borne related illness Attendance to WATSAN meetings Not significant at p<0.01 Willingness to protect areas around water from contamination Main source of water Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 21.893) Willingness to protect areas around water from contamination Attendance to WATSAN meetings Not significant at p<0.01 Perception of current access to water Main source of water Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 36.013) Perception of current access to water Attendance to WATSAN meetings Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square = 49.204) 107 Table 5.10 above also shows a significant association between household perceptions of current access to water and attendance to WATSAN meetings. The chi-square value is high at 49.204 with a p = 0.01. That is 89.3% of households that attended WATSAN meeting perceived that they were currently accessible to clean portable water compared with 10.7% who indicated they were inaccessible. Similarly, 53.7 of households that did not attend WATSAN meeting perceived that they were currently accessible to clean portable water compared with 46.3% that indicated they were inaccessible. Finally, table 5.11above displays the summary of the empirical results between CP and household willingness to practice better water handling hygiene in the settlements. As can be seen from the table there is a significant relationship p = 0.01 between water smell satisfying and main source of water. The relationship between water smell satisfying and attendance to WATSAN meeting is also significant at p = 0.01. Similar results can also be seen on the relationship between cleaning and covering water storage containers and main source of water p < 0.01, doctors clinic visits and main source of water p = 0.01, willingness to protect areas around water points from contamination and main source of water p = 0.01, perception of current access to water and main source of water p = 0.01, and, lastly perception of current access to water and attendance to water and sanitation meetings p = 0.01. 5.3 Additional Tests - Logistic Regression To validate the foregoing results logistic regression analysis tests were performed between the DVs and IVs. The two IVs are household main source of water and attendance to WATSAN meetings regressed on each DV. However unlike the situation in the previous case household main source of water was collapsed to constitute two categories. These include, those whose main source of water are community management and those who rely on other sources 108 such as private vendor, borehole, rain harvesting, well, spring and river. The general representation of each of the 10 models was follows; 𝐿𝑛 [ 𝑝(𝑦=1) 𝑝(𝑦=0) ] = 𝛽𝑜 + 𝛽𝑥 + ε, where Ln [ 𝑝(𝑦=1) 𝑝(𝑦=0) ] refers to the probability that an event will occur to the probability that it will not; 𝛽0 = intercept, 𝛽 = vector of model coefficients, 𝑥 = vector of independent covariates and factors and lastly ε = error term. Table 5.12 contains a summary of the results obtained. As the table shows, there is a statistically significant relationship between the dependent variables and independent variables in seven cases. These are, (1) households who report being satisfied or not satisfied with the smell of water and main source of water at p value <0.01; (2) Households who report being satisfied or not satisfied with the smell of water and attendance to WATSAN meeting p value <0.01; (3) Households who clean and cover or not clean and cover their water storage containers and main source of water p value <0.01; (4) Households who have visited a doctor’s clinic or not visited a doctor’s clinic in the last six month and diagnosed with water borne related disease and main source of water; (5) Households reporting willing to protect or not protect areas around water points from contamination and main source of water p value <0.05; (6) Households who report current access to water in their community being accessible or not accessible and main water source; (7) Households who report current access to water in their community being accessible or not accessible and attendance to WATSAN meeting p value <0.01. These results complement those obtained by the chi-square test. The result which indicated that there is an association between some participatory variables and willingness to practice better water handling by households living in the informal settlements of Kisumu, Kenya. 109 Table 5.12 Logit Results on Willingness to Practice Better Water Handling Hygiene as a Function of Participation Dependent variable Independent variable Results Model statistics Wald Odds ratio (e β ) Nagelkerke R square % Predicted correct Water smell satisfying Main source of water 6.541*** 2.089 0.028 65.6 Water smell satisfying Attendance to WATSAN meeting 34.097*** 4.712 0.157 65.6 Storage containers cleaned and covered Main source of water 14.481*** 10.656 0.169 95.9 Storage containers cleaned and covered Attendance to WATSAN meeting 2.901 3.121 0.037 95.9 Visited a doctors clinic and diagnosed with water borne related illness Main source of water 6.981*** 0.469 0.030 63.7 Visited a doctors clinic and diagnosed with water borne related illness Attendance to WATSAN meeting 0.233 1.154 0.002 63.1 Willingness to protect areas around water from contamination Main source of water 5.104** 5.792 0.081 97.8 Willingness to protect areas around water from contamination Attendance to WATSAN meeting 0.057 1.202 0.001 97.8 Perception of current access to water Main source of water 6.946*** 2.165 0.030 70.3 Perception of current access to water Attendance to WATSAN meeting 42.261*** 7.340 0.218 70.3 Notes *** Significant at the 0.0l level ** Significant at 0.05 level 110 5.4 Discussion of Findings Analysis of the empirical relationship between CP and the production of clean potable water supply in Kisumu informal settlements produce some very insightful results. Among the variables examined, the findings demonstrate that there is a statistically positive association between participation and clean water supply. Specifically households that use community managed water schemes as their main source of water tend to (1) be satisfied with the smell of water, (2) clean and cover their water storage containers, (3) rarely report being diagnosed with water borne related diseases, (4) are more willing to protect areas around water points from contamination, and (5) have a positive perception of current access to water. Similarly, households that participant in water-related activities such as attending water and sanitation (WATSAN) meetings tend to be (1) satisfied with the smell of their water, (2) are more willing to protect areas around water points from contamination, and (3) have a positive perception of current access to water. These findings complement the theory of community participation in many ways. Most importantly, the overall finding that participation leads to better outcome in the water service delivery (Briscoe & Ferranti, 1988; Finsterburch & Van Wicklin, 1987; Isham, Narayan & Pritchett, 1995). In this case, the production of clean potable water supply in the informal settlements/neighborhoods of Kisumu Kenya. Unlike in previous studies the variables examined in this chapter add a new dimension to participation in water service delivery. While earlier studies have used main source of water and meeting attendance as indicators of participation, they have failed to directly link these variables to household sanitary behaviors. Indeed a study by Manikutty, Mavalankar & Bhatt (1996) is one of the only few studies which have attempted to link participation to changes in beneficiary health habits. The variables used in operationalizing changes in health habits in this study 111 included using a tumbler to draw water from the containers and washing of hands with soap or no soap after defection. The results from this inquiry indicated that there was a reduction in water-borne related diseases in villages where households actively participated in health education seminars. That is, beneficiaries in those villages tended to wash their hands with soap after defecation thus leading to a reduction in water borne related diseases. Overall the results uncovered in this study indicate a strong positive association between household participation and willingness to practice better water handling hygiene. This demonstrates that household participation should be encouraged in the water service delivery sector in the informal settlement/neighborhoods. This is because the level of water quality meant for consumption is well documented as the main cause of most infectious diseases (WHO 1992). However, despite this knowledge, millions of people around the world still experience severe health problems due to contaminated drinking water (WHO/UNICEF, 2008). Postel (1997) estimated that around 80 percent of illnesses in the developing world are attributed to waterborne diseases. In fact, a study by the World Health Organization in (2010) reported that over 2.6 billion people live under improper sanitary conditions. The same report documents that almost 900 million people have no access to clean potable water. Pruss et al (2008) reported that almost 10 percent of the total burdens of diseases globally are attributed to unsafe water and unhygienic sanitation. In Kisumu, the main focus of this study, it is estimated that 80 percent of cholera transmissions and deaths are attributed to lack of access to safe potable water. Gleick (2002) document that by 2020 approximately between 34 and 76 million people will perish from waterborne related diseases. The level of water quality is one of the most serious public health crises facing humanity. For these reasons it requires keen attention from both policy makers and academic theorists. Furthermore access to clean potable water and better sanitation is important 112 because as argued by different scholars, it is the foundation for healthier and economically viable communities (Hutton et al 2007). Chattopadhyay and Duflo (2004) contended that one of the major obstacles to the provision of safe drinking water is the fact that governments and international organizations have been slow in engaging local communities and utilizing their capacity through participatory methods. They advise that the engagement of local people is essential for promoting better management practice in natural resource utilization. In terms of clean potable water supply, tapping the capacity of local communities can be accomplished through various methods. For example introducing them to new skills while at the same time augmenting the knowledge they already posses with current scientific knowledge, introducing them to water filtering techniques, encouraging families to boil water before usage, using proper storage techniques, promoting hygiene and cleanliness around water points, and periodically cleaning water storage facilities such as tanks. It should not be assumed that water quality can only improve through more infrastructural investment. Community participation in the form of hygiene education and better management practice are all powerful techniques which could be used for improving water quality. Thompson et al (2003) acknowledges that the use of technology to improve water quality is best accomplished when supported by participatory mechanisms. In communities where participation is absent, improving water quality can be difficult. Several studies attest to this assertion. A dissertation study by Stigler (2013) employed mixed methods techniques to examine health and cultural outcomes of new water infrastructure projects in two indigenous communities in Baja, Mexico. The results from the study revealed that after receiving new water infrastructure in both communities, neither saw a reduction in rates of gastrointestinal illness. Household point- 113 of-use water quality was still poor despite the introduction of the new infrastructure. Beneficiaries failed to accept the new infrastructure and the reason cited for doing so was the cultural significance of the previous water source from the community point of view. The recommendation made by the study was that it is important to incorporate CP into the planning and implementation of water improvements. A review of 57 public health studies by Wright (2004) identified households as active agents that play a significant role in water contamination after collection. Clasen and Bastable (2003) also reported a similar occurrence in Sierra Leone where there was a difference in the level of water quality between the source and households storage facilities. In Clasen et al (2003) study out of the 100 homes sampled, 92.9% of the samples were contaminated with fecal coliforms at levels higher than those found at the source. In a study carried out in South Africa and Zimbabwe (Conroy, 2006), 24 households in low-income communities were surveyed and water samples were taken, finding that more than 40% of samples taken from homes were unsafe even though the water had come from improved sources. These evidences suggest that improvements of water infrastructure alone do not lead to clean water supply. Better sanitary behaviors/improvements are needed at household level in order to improve clean potable water supply. In fact this chapter has statistically demonstrated that community participation can fulfill this role. Specifically it shows that there is an empirical link between participation and clean potable water supply at least in the case of Kisumu informal settlements. 114 6. PARTICIPATION-RELATED FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFOMANCE OF THE SCHEMES 6.1 Introduction Presented in this chapter are findings associated with Research Question Three. The question read thus: “What are the participation-related factors affecting the performance of the schemes?” The chapter is divided into four sections. The introduction deals with the concept of success. Section Two and Three focus on factors the FGD participants perceived to have contributed to the success/or impeded success of the schemes respectively. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how the results relate to previous literature. Much debate has taken place on how to define or conceptualize success in projects. The Oxford English dictionary defines success as the accomplishment of an aim or a favorable outcome. However, reviewing of literature reveals the ambiguity and multidimensional nature of the term success. Belout (1998) asserts that the term essentially connotes two things: efficiency and effectiveness. In economics, Ducker (1998) described efficiency as to do things right, or to improve results by maximizing outputs. On the one hand, effectiveness is defined as the ability to attain project goals and objectives. Ika (2009) considers project success as the ability of a project to fall within the time, cost and quality constraints. This definition is reflected in Atkinson (1999) and Westerveld (2003) works. These authors advanced the idea that to be considered successful; a project must fall within the golden triangle of time, cost and quality. However, it is worth noting that a project may fall within this triangle but fail upon its completion or fail to deliver expected results after several years in operation. 115 Shenhar et al (1996) discussed the term project success within the following criterion: a) internal project objectives, b) benefit to customers, c) direct contribution, and d) future opportunity. Crawford (2005) described project success based on the perception of the beneficiaries. That is, if the project met the technical performance specifications and/or its mission from the beneficiary’s perspective. A second criterion is the extent to which a project’s outputs, operating procedures, and interaction with its proximate environment are considered satisfactory by the project’s primary beneficiaries (cf., Crawford, 2005). This is essentially the notion of success employed in this study. The FGD participants were asked whether they considered the four schemes as having been successful (FGD interview protocol in the appendix section). The FGD participants uniformly expressed satisfaction with the projects as far as their; technical performance, years of operation, health benefits and improvement in water access were concerned. All the four schemes apart from Paga had operated for over 12 years since their establishment. The FGD participants also acknowledged that schemes had met their mission of improving access to safe clean water and better sanitation to the residents. They further observed that improvement in water service delivery came with other associated health benefits such as a decrease in water borne diseases. Table 6.1 is a summary of percentage of households who felt that there has been an improvement in water reliability in their community since 2013. Table 6.2 is a summary of percentage of households who have suffered from water borne related diseases in the settlement in the last six months. This information was generated from the survey data. Both tables corroborate the information coming from the FGD data. As can be seen from the two tables, majority of the beneficiaries feel that there has been a dramatic improvement in water reliability 116 in the settlement. Similarly few respondents report having suffered from any of the four major water borne diseases in the last six month. Table 6.1 Percentage of Respondents Positively Reviewing Water Reliability in their Community since 2013 (n: 317) Scheme % main water source reliable % main water source not reliable Wandiege 94.9 5.1 Obunga 71.3 28.8 Asengo 62 38 Paga 14 65 Total 61.5 38.5 Table 6.2 Percentage of Respondents who reported a Family member having suffered from Water Borne Related Disease (n: 317) % any household member suffered any of the following waterborne related diseases Cholera Typhoid Scabies Bilharzia None Wandiege 2.5 24 1.3 3.8 68 Obunga 21.3 35 3.8 0 40 Asengo 5.1 30.4 0 1.3 63.3 Paga 2.5 34.2 1.3 1.3 60.8 Total 7.9 30.9 1.6 1.6 58 Presented next are the participatory related factors which were deemed by the FGD as having contributed to the success of the schemes. 6.2 Contributing Factors to the Success of the Schemes The analysis reveals that six factors (Table 6.3) beginning with the most dominant to the least dominant contributed to the success of the schemes. These included networking and collaboration, continuous community engagement/participation, the formation of water consumer groups, coordination and organizational management, extent of institutional formalization and provision of dividends. Some of these factors such as networking and collaboration, continuous community engagement/participation and coordination and organizational management have featured in previous studies as determinants of success (see e.g. Botes & van Rensburg, 2000; 117 Khwaja, 2003; McGowan & Burns, 1988; Njoh, 2002; 2006, Rondinelli, 1991; Tendler, 1993; Uphoff, 1996). 6.2.1 Networking and Collaboration Comments from the (FGDs) indicated that networking and collaboration with other organizations have played a key role in the success of all the four schemes. For instance, SANA provided a 40, 000 US dollar loan to the Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS). This loan has enabled the scheme to be financially sustainable. They used it to lay extra pipes, erect two extra water kiosks and build two additional storage tanks. The additional pipes invariably improved water access in the community. Prior to the completion of the SANA-supported water schemes, members of the community depended on the same source of water as cattle. Currently the majority of people in the community rely on the newly constructed community water kiosks. It is also worth noting that improved piping network came along with the new bathing places for women thereby resulting in improved sanitation. Apart from the loan provision, SANA has been at the forefront in human resource mobilization in AWSS. They have brought in different donors who have provided vocational training on sanitation and its importance. Such training has ushered in quality and professionalism in the general management of water both as a commodity and a basic human need. In the words of one participant from AWSS “The training we have received from working with other partners like SANA has really helped us make this scheme a success. We started this project as lay men who believed that water should be given for free. However, the financial management seminars arranged by SANA has enabled us to prudently manage our finances”. Results from FGDs with the other schemes also point to better outcome which came as a result of having partnered and collaborated with different organizations. A case worth noting is 118 the benefits which Obunga Water and Sanitation project (OWSP) have generated as a result of its cooperation with organizations like Umande trust, Pamoja and Secode. The Umande Trust is a rights based organization headquartered in Kisumu. It specializes in designing and building bio- centers. These are toilets modelled to convert human wastes into biogas and liquid fertilizers. Through its partnership with OWSP, Umande Trust has been able to build a bio-center for the community. The biogas produced by the center is sold to community members who use it as a source of fuel for cooking. The extra revenue from the venture is ploughed back into the scheme. The second organization which has partnered with OWSP is Secode (Sustainable Environment and Community Development Project). Its partnership with the scheme has led to improved efficiency in service delivery. As observed in one of our transect walks, the most significant problem which OWSP has battled with for years was meter chamber vandalism. The majority of people living in the settlement are youths who are poor and unemployed. Most of them depend on stealing and selling meter chambers to scrap metal traders. For this reason, OWSP partnered with Secode who then sponsored the reinforcement of meter chambers with concrete blocks. Today the problem of meter chamber vandalism has reduced. Similarly, the WWSP management team also partially credited the organization’s success to partnership fostered with various organizations. These included the Millennium cities initiative, KIWASCO and Pamoja trust. As noted by their chairman the three organizations have always responded to the community needs. For example, they built a community hall and toilets which the community is renting for additional income. Through negotiation, KIWASCO has accepted to work with Wandiege by closing some of the water kiosks they were operating in the informal settlements. As previously mentioned KIWASCO is a privatized water company with 119 huge capital investment within the city of Kisumu. As a result of its monopolistic tendencies it has been providing stiff competition to Wandiege water scheme. 6.2.2 Continuous Community Engagement/Participation The OWSP participants stated that continuous community participation and engagement have been instrumental to their survival as an actor in the water service provisioning domain. As the secretary of their management team put it “When we initiated this project in the year 2003, we had many water vendors who were operating in this slum. When we came in they resented our initiative because water vending was their only source of income. However most people in the community came to our rescue and supported us in carrying out the project”. This statement is further reinforced by the secondary evidence documented in their books of accounts. They indicate that 90 percent of beneficiaries who draw water from OWSP pay their water bills in time (OWSP, 2014). It is important to acknowledge that the timely payment of bills in any organization is a pertinent factor in ensuring continuity. In the case of the OWSP, timely payment of water bills has enabled the management to judiciously carry out its operations with limited hitches. For instance they have been able to repair and maintain the water pump and pay their employees on time. Most importantly, the timely payment of the water bills has facilitated the repayment of loans advanced to the scheme by SANA International. These were loans secured by the scheme for initial pipe extensions during the projects initiation. 6.2.3 The Formation of Water Consumer Groups A comparison of all the FGDs data suggest that the formation of the water consumer group did play a role in the success of the studied schemes. A participant of WWSP listed three distinct responsibilities of their water consumer group to be as follows. First, dissemination of 120 Table 6.3 Contributing Factors to the Success of the Schemes Factor Components 1. Networking and collaboration  Benefits generated through attraction of more revenues  Sharing of new skills and training which help the project meet its goal and mission  Additional labor if requested  Limit to losses coming from water pipe vandalism 2. Continuous community engagement/participation  Creating a strong sense of community ownership  Generation of constant revenue to the schemes  Provision of additional security to the schemes assets  Goodwill to the scheme i.e. timely payment of bills 3. Formation of water consumer groups  Facilitate in operation and maintenance processes  Bridging the gap between beneficiaries and the management  Improvement of transparency and fairness  A show of adherence to democratic principles  Expanding networking and collaboration among water users or with other related agencies 4. Coordination and organizational management  Monitoring and evaluation i.e. performance evaluation  Quick response/solution to technical glitches such as bursting pipes or vandalism  Efficient, transparent and accountable revenue management  Better containment of beneficiary expectation 5. Extent of institutional formalization  Enabling order  Better planning since beneficiary information are kept in a central place  Easy way to reach the management  Quick response rate to issues such as pipe breakages  Central location for meeting attendance and carrying out procurements. Other partners will also have easy access to the management team 6. Provision of dividends  Creation of a stronger sense of ownership  Generation of additional revenue  Expansion of the service through additional revenue  Community empowerment through additional financial liberation 121 information – that is, ensuring that the beneficiaries are well informed about any new water service reforms. They achieve this by convening periodic public awareness forums. In Wandiege, the positive benefit generated by the forum is manifested by the fact that most residents are aware of their rights and obligations as water consumers. Second, there has been a marked improvement in cooperation and partnership between water service providers throughout Kisumu County. This has provided a platform where stakeholders in the water industry can exchange ideas and experiences with the hope of improving service delivery. Finally, water consumer groups, a manifestation of cooperation, provide relevant feedback by acting as the “community voice” on issues which require management and stakeholder consultation. Specifically in the case of WWSP, their water consumer group monitors community experiences and provides feedback to the management. For example, as pointed out by one committee member the water consumer group has been very vocal in water price negotiation. Two years ago five liters of water used to cost three Kenyan Shillings (Kshs 3) but due to high electricity cost the price had to be adjusted to Kshs 5. Before this change took effect beneficiaries had to be consulted. Credit for this innovation goes to the scheme’s water consumer group. This is yet another mark of cooperation-for facilitating smooth transition. The instrumental roles of the water consumer groups are also evident in the other three schemes. The responses from PWSS showed that its consumer group has achieved three important results. First, they have ensured that members of the community know their right to quality water. Second, they have ensured that these members are aware of their right to regular water supply. Finally, they have supported the community in demanding and obtaining accurate periodic audited books of accounts from the management committee. As confirmed by the chairman this knowledge and awareness is what has kept them up-to-task with their roles. 122 The same can be said of OWSP where the consumer group has ensured that the community knows its responsibility in helping the scheme meet its goals and objectives. They have done this by making beneficiaries pay their water bills on time. Moreover they have ensured that unauthorized usage or interference with water facilities are accurately reported to the management committee. Cooperation articulated in terms of water consumer groups also played an indispensable role in the Asengo Water and Sanitation sheme (AWSS). Note that water for AWSS scheme originates from a spring from Nandi Hills. As a result of human population growth and poverty, human activities especially stone harvesting and charcoal burning have increased around the Nandi hills area thus lowering water quality. However, as revealed by the FGD participants, the water consumer group has fought the negative human activities around the Nandi hill watershed with vigor. They have pressurized both the management team and local government authorities to ensure that water quality does not deteriorate to unusable levels. In the last two years their efforts have yielded positive returns because as compared to the other three water schemes the quality of Asengo water is higher. The color of the water is clearer and the community boasts relatively low incidences of water borne diseases. Note that the scheme has two main supply lines, the upper and the lower lines. The former is powered by electricity while the latter is gravity operated. Because of high electricity bills, the water service for beneficiaries relying on the upper line can be classified as averagely below standards. In one of our transect walks, the community living along the upper line vehemently complained of the poor service and lack of water during dry seasons. However, because each community has a representative in the water consumer group team, they have been able to advocate for equal distribution of water without favoring any group. 123 6.2.4 Coordination and Organizational Management Good coordination and organizational management played a significant role in Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS). A participant from this scheme stated that their management team is composed of men and women of integrity who respond quickly to complaints about water service delivery or technical glitches. Sometimes members of the management team contribute their own money to supplement financial contributions by members of the community. As noted by another FGD participant, at the beginning of 2014 the AWSS management contributed their own money to repair the main meter chamber. For the community, this confirmed that the team was leading by example. Another community member stated that they act as true custodians of their property which is water. When asked why he thought the management team had done a good job in ensuring the project’s success, one participant stated “In Obunga our management committee has established a transparent and accountable system. We receive our water bills in time and these bills reflect the amount of water we use. The bills are never exaggerated as compared to the early 1990s when the Kisumu municipal council was in charge of the water systems in this city. When the management team wants to adjust the water prices they do involve us in the process and our views are expressed through our water consumer group. We get reliable water even though sometimes the pipes are dry and we have to rely on the water vendors. Still we are happy with their work”. The foregoing narrative however contradicts findings for PWSS. In fact, almost all the FGD participants in this scheme associated the problem of infrequent water supply and lack of success to the management team. The team was seen as passive participants consisting of retirees out of touch with the reality in urban water service provisioning. As stressed by the chairman of 124 the water consumer group team, in this scheme, the management has neither convened any community water meetings for the last year nor organized any elections during the last five years. For these reasons there is limited trust in the management team. The beneficiaries in PWSS do not even trust SANA. This is captured by a statement made by one woman FGD participant – “SANA International failed to provide our management team with good technical advice. For example we were lukewarmly consulted when the project was being initiated. From this point we knew that we were starting on shaky ground and this is the reason for the schemes abysmal performance”. Such views were prevalent throughout the entire community. They charge the leadership with corruption and feel the need for more elections and consultations on matters relating to the scheme. Contrary to the community, the management of PWSS attributed inefficiency in the scheme to a lack of political goodwill. There has been political rivalry in the community between the area member of parliament and some community elders. According to the chairman, another reason which has contributed to a hindrance in their performance is geographical constraints. The scheme is located in a hilly and rocky land thus making it difficult to lay pipes. Some of the pipes are exposed over the ground which attracts thieves thereby increasing operation costs. Additionally, human settlements in this area are sparsely distributed. This means that the pipe network has to cover long distances which come with extra costs. 6.2.5 Extent of Institutional Formalization Most community based water schemes in the developing world are operated from beneficiary houses, under trees, in schools or churches. Often they lack centralized office spaces and most of the work are done on voluntary basis (Paul, 1987). 125 The findings in this study reveal that the formulation of a structured centralized office composed of salaried employees positively correlated to the success of the schemes. This observation was particularly pronounced in three schemes. Data from the focus group discussion on OWSP indicated that having an office space has enabled them to have their beneficiaries’ information at the touch of a computer button (Figure 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4). Figure 6.1 Asengo Water Scheme Office (Source: Author) Specifically, as illustrated by their secretary, the availability of office space has enabled them to co-locate employees such as plumbers and line patrollers in one place. This has improved their response rate on issues such as pipe breakages, theft and vandalism. Most importantly, the management too has had a place where they can carry out project needs and procurement procedures in a transparent manner. It has a place where it can hold periodic 126 meetings. Other partners such as SANA and other organizations also have a central location where they can reach the community. The foregoing view was also shared by the other two schemes apart from Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme (PWSS) which does not have a central office and salaried staff. Work in this scheme is done purely on voluntary basis. The water kiosks are managed by the women group and whenever there are issues of pipe breakages the management has to hire a private plumber to address the problem. Indeed in this study we carried out a total of 12 FDGs thus culminating to 3 per community. Most of these discussions took place in the community offices apart from Paga where we held out FDG under a tree due to lack of a designated office space (see, figure 6.4). Figure 6.2 Wandiege Water Scheme Office (Source: Author) 127 Figure 6.3 Obunga Water Scheme Office (Source: Author) Figure 6.4 Focus Group Discussion Meeting at Paga Water Scheme (Source: Author) 128 6.2.6 Provision of Dividends to the Community The Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme (WWSS) have a unique arrangement with its beneficiaries. Although the project is community-operated, it has adopted a business model that almost rivals that of blue chip companies in the western world. After being in operation for four years the management in consultation with the community decided to securely float the water scheme’s shares. Community members were invited to buy a limited number of shares which ranged from Kshs 100 to Kshs 10,000 (1 USD equals Kshs. 84) per share. Many people from the community bought these shares and today as showcased by the FGDs participants, the community is receiving benefits accrued from this venture. The money raised from the sale of the shares has effectively been utilized in extending the pipe network and in building build more water kiosks. Some part of the money has been used to construct a bio-center and the community ablution block complete with payable public showers. Apart from these investments the community now receives yearly dividends which are pegged on the profits generated by the water scheme. The following remark by one of the male participants exemplifies beneficiaries contentment with the dividend payments; “Because we receive yearly dividends from this scheme we feel we own the project and therefore ready to protect it from any invaders. It acts as a source of income for us while at the same time providing us with clean water. Some of us have used the money we get from the dividends in starting new businesses”. 6.3 Impediments to the Schemes Success The results indicate that four factors were perceived by the participants as having slowed the success in the schemes. These included clanism, population increase, and poverty and community fatigue. Refer to Table 6.4 for a summary of the aforementioned impediments. 129 Table 6.4 Factors which Impeded the Success of the Schemes Factor Components Clanism  Biased representation in the management committee  Diminishes the community sense of ownership  Inefficient management (poor resource mobilization, poor policy implementation)  Limit the community the available skills needed to effectively operate the system  Lead to a week or lack thereof democratic principles  Financial constraints due to diminished community sense of ownership Population increase, poverty & community fatigue  Pressure on water system delivery  Diminished community sense of ownership  Destruction to watersheds due to population and increased human activities around water catchment areas 6.3.1 Clanism Clanism played a significant role in impeding success in two schemes, including AWSS and PWSS. The AWSS is located in the urban district of Kisumu. However, historically before the expansion and immigration of different communities into the area, it has always been perceived that the area belonged to the Kaduong clan. Prior to Kenya’s independence in 1963, the Kaduong clan had settled in the area where AWSS is currently located. The surrounding clans like Katieno and Kokuku had always been viewed as foreigners in the area. Indeed, despite Kisumu’s expansion and the dilution of the Kaduong clan by different communities, the perception that the AWSS belongs to the Kaduong clan remains prevalent. In fact, this view is supported by the composition of the scheme’s executive committee. In spite of different communities living in the area the executive committee is generally composed of people from the native Kaduong clan. Yet, as a community-owned water scheme, the board should be representative of the people it serves. In one of the transect walk, a female FGD 130 participant noted that the water needs of persons from outside Kaduong the so called foreigners are typically ignored by the management. Traces of clanism were also apparent in the Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme (PWSS). The PWSS was meant to serve three sub-locations along the Nyanza gulf which are the Osiri, Kanyawegi and Ojolla administrative sub-locations. After its completion the scheme was networked through the three sub-locations. As per its constitution the management composing of twelve committee members is to be recruited equally from within the three sub-locations. However because of clanism, this requirement has not been periodically honored. The FGD participants observed that whenever there are elections each community always wants to have a majority in the management committee. The following statement by one participant clearly captures how clanism has played a detrimental role in the general operations of the scheme. “The element of clanism has prevented our water project from getting the right and dedicated people who are prepared to manage this project. Every clan from the three sub-locations wants to have a majority in the management committee. Unfortunately some of the people who vouch for the available twelve posts are driven by the expectation of financial gain. After being in the committee for a few months, they realize that there is no money and thus leave the project hanging”. Data from the FGDs further point out that clanism has also affected the effectiveness of the scheme on other fronts. For instance, it has led to poor turnout during meetings, poor policy implementation and poor resource mobilization. In terms of meeting attendance as lamented by one participant, it is imperative to recognize that meetings provide a venue where community members iron out matters affecting their project. However when there is a sense of “our” project as often seen in PWSS then not all members will see the project as a community owned project. 131 On the contrary, they will view it as a given clan’s project and hence find no incentive for actively participating in its development. With this policy in place the community felt that only a certain clan from within the community was being targeted for water disconnection. They contend that the policy was never implemented across the board thus making them feel victimized. Lastly in PWSS, information from our FGDs suggests that unlike the other schemes the element of clanism has made it very difficult for the management to mobilize a new resource base. In our discussions, one of the constraints mentioned as limiting optimal functioning of the scheme was lack of financial capital needed for expansion and improvement. The group mentioned that at one point the main water intake pump from Lake Victoria was damaged and did not operate for six months. When they approached the community for additional financial contribution to repair the pump most of the members were reluctant to participate. However our further in-depth inquiries revealed that the community members were dissatisfied with the structural composition of the management team. Quite a majority of the residents living in the three sub-locations felt that the management team was not democratically elected as per the scheme’s constitution. This fact made them feel disenfranchised and for this reason they were reluctant to contribute additional resources. As observed by various community development scholars’ resource mobilization in community operated projects must start with its members. Paul (1987) contended that when that does not take place such projects are bound to fail. 6.3.2 Population Increase, Poverty and Community Fatigue These three factors can be merged into one theme. As exposed by the FGDs they appear to might have impeded success in the four schemes. PWSS was designed to serve a population of 132 10,000 people. Currently the population in the area has increased three fold making it impossible to secure sufficient water service delivery to the new ballooned population. The same problem has been experienced in the other three schemes which as of today have a population of 20000, 40000 and 50000 people respectively (SANA, 2014). At their onset these projects were modeled to serve human populations of no more than 15000 people each (SANA, 2014). Specifically for AWSS, population increase has come along with other problems such as stone and firewood harvesting around Riat hill which is the main watershed for the scheme. Currently, the area is experiencing deforestation which is mainly fueled by poverty, unemployment and the need for firewood. This problem and how it affects the schemes progress was accurately captured in the statement made by the chairman during FGD discussions. He observed that, “One of the major obstacles which has hindered our growth as a community water service delivery scheme is population increase which is associated to poverty and unemployment. High rate of unemployment in this area has forced people to depend on the water catchment area for survival. They harvest stones from Riat hills watershed which they sell for Kshs 1500 per seven ton truck. Besides this, the youths also engage in charcoal burning which has devastating effects on the forests. The forest cover in Riat hills is getting destroyed up-to the roots because the youths go as far as digging out the tree stumps. For the women, they fetch firewood for sale. These activities if not curtailed is affecting the well-being of our water scheme.” Another notable impediment, as perceived by the participants, was community fatigue. In the case of the PWSS, water consumer group FGD participants observed that in the initial stages the project had taken too long to be operational. As a result some members lost interest in the project and were reluctant to contribute money or labor which curtailed the growth of the 133 scheme. The same problem somewhat manifested in the OWSP and WWSP. In the two schemes community fatigue came as a result of some members becoming dissatisfied with the amount of meetings and the time the meetings were convened. Women felt that there have been too many meetings thus interfering with their daily activities like cooking. On top of this they complained that most meetings were held in the evenings making it difficult for them to attend. At this time of the day they are busy preparing evening meals for their husbands while at the same time preparing children for bed. 6.4 Discussion of Findings The afore-reported findings echo those of previous researchers. The findings on community partnerships and collaboration provide some empirically-grounded support for the commonly held notion that community partnership and collaboration with other organizations can be a recipe for success in development projects (cf., Uphoff, 1996). Rondinelli and Cheema (1988) observed that community self-help projects have rarely succeeded in places where there is limited support from public agencies or lack of collaboration with other non-governmental organizations. For Rondinelli and his colleagues, such agencies serve several important purposes. Apart from giving additional revenue, they provide skilled training for community leaders. This in turn helps them meet project goals. On their part, Egunjobi and Maro (1985) presented evidence showing how a community drinking water project in Igboho, Nigeria benefited from the additional financial help from the Ministry of Information and Social Development. The community used the money to build additional water reservoir dams. Further support to the findings comes from a study of the Kumbo community water supply project in Cameroon by Njoh (2006). According to Njoh, the project benefited from technical and financial support by the Canadian Development Agency and the Catholic Church. 134 The revelations on communal ownership of public works are also in concert with those of previous studies. Some of the studies have suggested that at the core of sustainability or success in any community-operated water scheme is the existence of a sense of ownership (see e.g., Kleemeier, 1995, 1998, 2000; Manikutty, 1995a, 1995b). One way to ascertain a community sense of ownership in projects is through active involvement which can be measured through various mechanisms. Most prominent among these are meeting attendances and cash or in-kind contributions (Prokoby 2004, 2005, 2009; Sara & Davis, 2012). Our FGDs data reaffirmed that continuous active community engagement/participation was one of the key variables which influenced success in the four schemes. To begin with, in the case of WWSP most participants contended that at the onset of the project residents were mobilized to contribute funds. All of them responded to this request without resentment or hesitation. They continue to play a big role in providing security to the project assets such as pipes and water kiosks. Because of this, there is a significant reduction in pipe vandalism. The observation with respect to consumer group formation also echoes previous findings. For instance, Rondinelli (1991) stated that to ensure success in self-help projects, appropriate and effective processes must be developed for water system operations and maintenance and the process must be institutionalized within the community. A study by Narayan-Parker (1998) indicated that a five-step process for organizing village water committees contributed to the success of the Mombasa South Coast Hand-pump Project. The first and the second stage involved getting residents to elect water committees who were to act as pump caretakers. This was followed by training the elected committees on pump repair and installation. Lastly, equipping beneficiaries with appropriate operation and maintenance skills which involved helping them know how to balance their accounts books. 135 Robert Chambers (1994) identified monitoring, evaluations and feedback as important tools, which if appropriately implemented in self-help projects, have the potential for guaranteeing success. These tools can better be presented and/or implemented in water schemes where the management committees possess a high level of sophistication, organizational skills and commitment. Blakely and colleagues (1985) provided an example where good organizational skills and commitment from the committee contributed to the success of the Wonging’ombe rural water supply project in Tanzania. The committee in this project was efficient in dealing with practical matters such as complaints, providing constant feed-back to the funding agency or enticing beneficiaries into owning the project. Similar observations can be reported in the present study. The findings suggest that another notable contributor to the success of the schemes is good coordination and prudent organization emanating from the management committees. This observation is supported by statements made by the FGDs participants. The treasurer of WWSP commented that the management team has been aggressive in implementing changes in the application process for individual water connection. The process has been made easy, transparent and quicker. In a study which used Mutengene self-help water project as empirical referent, Njoh (2002) discussed barriers to CP in development planning. By using a study by Botes and van Rensburg (2000) as a platform, Njoh identified almost a dozen barriers to CP in development planning. One barrier which hindered success was internal conflicts between members of the native population and non-native population (Njoh, 2002). In another study in Yemen, Hodgkin (1989) report that maintenance of water points became problematic in communities where there was rampant ethnic and/or class conflict. As a result of such conflicts, communities which shared the same water points found it difficult to 136 share maintenance responsibilities. Indeed, for some villages water vendors opposed the introduction of community system. A previously stated in this study clanism mainly had negative effects on the success of two schemes namely Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme (PWSS) and Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme (AWSS). These schemes are located at the edge of the Kisumu municipal urban boundary. The location factor might play a possible role in why in comparison to the other two schemes they are greatly affected by the problem of clanism. Specifically, the main water source in AWSS sits at a region which has been inhabited by the Kaduong clan for over a century and the region somewhat still has a rural outlook. For this reason the community has developed a strong traditional bond with the water source. In fact, as articulated by their chairman, the community sees the main source of water located at the foot of Riat hills as a spiritual gift from God to them. They feel that they ought to guard it and protect it from intruders often considered as foreigners. They have been able to express this feeling through their election patterns which indicates that out of the six executive committee members all of them emanate from the Kaduong clan. Similar attitudes and patterns exist in the PWSS where clanism has also played a negative detrimental role. As showcased by the FGD data, clanism in this scheme has led to poor turnout in community water meetings thus affecting policy implementation and resource mobilization. Overall, the findings in this chapter has have exposed some of the factors which might have contributed to the success of the studied water schemes. Also identified in the chapter are factors which might have slowed/impeded success. Ideally the issues listed here should be considered for reflection by urban water development specialist in the ever mushrooming informal settlements in Africa. It is however important to recognize the fact that while these 137 Kisumu informal settlements have some issues that may be unique to their water production and social structure; they can still be used as a generalized example. 138 7. CONCLUSION This chapter consists of three sections. Section One discusses the study’s contribution to the literature on community participation in water production and management. Section Two discusses the study’s limitation. The final section identifies and discusses directions for further research in the field of community participation in urban water production and management. 7.1 Contributions to Literature The findings from this study make the following contribution to the field of community participation in water service delivery. It build on previous works by employing mixed methods approach and household level data to demonstrate; 1) individual relationships between different participatory variables and beneficiary satisfaction with the work of water management committees which is essential for effective water service delivery, 2) relationships between participation and clean water supply in the informal settlements of Kisumu Kenya which is necessary for waterborne related disease mitigation, and 3) highlight important participation- related factors which affect performance in urban based community operated water schemes. Previous studies have rarely used mixed methods approach and household level data to interrogate the effect of CP in urban water service delivery. Exceptions are the following, White et al (1972) research in East Africa; Briscoe et al (1981; 1990) studies in Bangladesh and Brazil; Asante et al (2002) research in the Ghanaian Volta Basin; Bohm et al (1993) study in the Philippines; Dayal et al (2000) global methodological assessments of rural water supplies in 15 countries; Prokopy (2002) research on rural water supplies in India and lastly Isham & Kahkonen 139 (1999). It is important to note that most of the afore-listed studies focused their analysis in rural and not urban informal environments. The second contribution made by this inquiry is that previous studies have used clusters of indicators in ascertaining CP and better outcome in water supplies projects around the world (see, e.g. Kleemeier, 2000; Lockwood, 2003; Narayan, 1995; Prokoby & Thorsten, 2005; Sara & Katz, 1998; WASH, 1994). It is important to acknowledge that such measurement while valid may be masked by the effects of other variables. This study has specifically used beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the management committee responsible for managing their main source of water as an indicator of project effectiveness. The responses were then regressed against specific participatory variables in the bivariate model test. The objective was to ascertain which among the variables were associated with consumer satisfaction. The results indicate that households who participate/involved in the schemes activities tend to be more satisfied with the overall work of the management committee responsible for managing their main source of water. To the principle investigators knowledge this is the first attempt to use some direct measures of participation on beneficiary satisfaction with the work of the water management committees. Third, this study has addressed the fact that despite evidence showing the success of CP in rural water service provisioning, very few studies have evaluated its effects in urban water delivery especially in informal settlements. The broader management model which has often been promoted in urban centers is privatization. However, in the Southern hemisphere it has failed to achieve the benefits previously anticipated and specifically in the case of urban informal environments. It is important to note that informal neighborhoods account for roughly 30 to 60 percent of the urban population. Those who live in these environments are poor and most governments or private companies give lower priorities to issues affecting them. Millions of 140 people are therefore denied access to clean potable water. Generally, the findings from this study demonstrate that CP can be used as a viable strategy in establishing more effective urban based community managed water schemes tested through consumer satisfaction with the management committee’s work. It can also be used as a strategy for enhancing the delivery of clean potable water in urban informal settlement. Finally, the study shed light into some of the new participation-related factors which may potentially aid or impede the establishment of community urban-based operated water schemes. Previous studies (i.e. Botes & van Rensburg, 2000; Cooke and Kothari, 2001;Njoh, 2002, 2006; Dukeshire & Thurlow, 2002; Platteau & Abraham, 2002; Platteau, 2004; Ngnikam, 2008; Mohammadi, 2010; Swapan, 2014) have highlighted factors such as intra group conflicts, population increase, lack of collaboration and active participation as factors which may aid or impede community operated water projects.The new factors which this study brings to the table are, 1) provision of yearly dividends to the beneficiary community, 2) the formation of water consumer groups, and 3) the establishment of a structured community office complete with salaried staff. 7.2 Study Limitation The first potential limitation of this inquiry is that it mostly relied on information given by the respondents. However, the four projects used as empirical referent have been in operation for over ten years. There is a possibility that some of the respondents’ accounts of events could have been lost due to human forgetfulness. Another limitation is that most of the respondents were females because during the time of data collection most of the possible male respondents were out working. This might have resulted to some aspects of biasness. However, on the positive side and as argued elsewhere most 141 of the water related activities are performed by females i.e. fetching of water, washing of storage containers or cooking. In this regard women are an information rich group in studies like this. The other limitation was the rare incidences of respondent being hesitant to answer some specific survey questions. These included the number of people living in a house, income or level of education. Some respondents felt that these are private questions and should not be disclosed to the public. For this reason the socioeconomic factors which might have been used for further analysis on consumer satisfaction questions have been omitted. Time constraint was another problem which hindered the scope of this study. The research team had three months to collect both quantitative and qualitative data concurrently. The dissertation had to be completed within a tight time schedule. Moreover because of limited time the research team was not able to return to the field to collect additional information after initial data analysis. Despite the limitations, two main possibilities for future research within the academy of community participation in urban water production and management will be put forth. 7.3 Avenues for Future Research Based on the findings from this dissertation more studies are needed to help in validating the application of community participation as a viable strategy in urban water management. The quantitative results from this study indicate that CP has been very instrumental in the establishment of sustainable community based water schemes in Kisumu informal neighborhoods. Furthermore CP has also been effective in enhancing the delivery of clean potable water supply by promoting better water handling habits among households. In evaluating these benefits, one key question which remains is that more evidence is needed across cities in Africa with similar characteristics like Kisumu. 142 Other options for interested researchers may include carrying out comparative studies on the effects of CP in urban water provisioning between cities in Africa, Asia or Latin America. A comparative analysis between such cities would help enrich the sharing of knowledge and experiences between different communities. Furthermore such analysis could yield some interesting results considering the cultural differences between communities across the three continents. 143 REFERENCES Abraham, A., & Platteau, J. P. (2004). Participatory development: When culture creeps. In: Rao, V., & Walton, M. (Eds), Culture and public action: A cross-disciplinary dialogue and development policy (pp. 210-233). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Adamolekun, L. (1991). Promoting African decentralization. Public Administration and Development, 11(3), 285-286. Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development, 29(10), 1623-1648. Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. C. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asia and African cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4), 473-502. Alabaster, G. (2010). Urbanization and water management – trends, challenges and perspectives. Presentation at World Water Week Stockholm (online http://www.worldwaterweek.org/documents/WWW_PDF/2010/tuesday/T5/Graham_Ala baster - accessed 1/4/2015) Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2002). Interactive statistics, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Alkin, M. C., Daillak, R., & White, P. (1979). Using evaluation: Does evaluation make a difference? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Anderson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from polycentric perspectives. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 71-93. http://www.worldwaterweek.org/documents/WWW_PDF/2010/tuesday/T5/Graham_Alabaster %20-%20accessed%201/4/2015 http://www.worldwaterweek.org/documents/WWW_PDF/2010/tuesday/T5/Graham_Alabaster %20-%20accessed%201/4/2015 144 Asante, F., Berger, T,. Engel, S., & Iskandarani, M., (2002). Water security in the Ghanaian Volta Basin: Patterns, determinants and consequences. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 41(1), 145-167. Asian Development Bank (1998) (Consultation Draft online). The Banks Policy on Water: Working Paper. Consultation Draft 3. Atampugre, N. (1997). Aid, NGOs and grassroots development: Northern Burkina Faso. Review of African Political Economy, 24(71), 57-73. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342. Awortwi, N. (2012). The riddle of community development: factors influencing participation and management in twenty-nine African and Latin American communities. Community Development Journal, 48(1) 89-104. Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L.D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research. Belmont California: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Bakalian, A., & Wakeman, W. (2009). Post-construction support and sustainability in community-managed rural water supply, case studies in Peru, Bolivia and Ghana. World Bank Netherlands Water Partnership. Bakker, K. (2008). The ambiguity of community: Debating alternatives to private-sector provision of urban water supply. Water Alternatives, 1(2), 236-252. 145 Bakker, K. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world’s urban water crisis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bakker, K., Kooy, M., Shofiani, N. & Ernst-Jan, M. (2008). Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Development, 36(10), 1891-1915. Banerjee, G. S., & Morella, E. (2011). Africa’s water and sanitation infrastructure, access, affordability and alternatives, Washington DC: World Bank Publications. Bayliss, K. (2003). Utility privatization in Sub-saharan Africa: A case study of water. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(4), 507-531. Bayliss, K. (2002). Privatization and poverty: The distributional impact of utility privatization. Annals of Public and Co-operatives Economics, 73(4), 603-625. Belout, A. (1998). Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 21-26. Bhasin, K. (1985). Towards empowerment. Rome FAO. Bhatt, A., Carino, L.V., Shams, K., Siedentopf, H., & Sosmena, Jr., G.C. (eds) (1987). Building from below: Local Initiatives for decentralized development in Asia and Pacific. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Center. Blakely, I. A., Mwqanganila, M. G., Ngwalje, C. D., & Swai, C. L. (1985). UNICEF assisted Waning’ombe projects: Gravity water supply and rural sanitation, in Ince, M. (ed) Water and Sanitation in Africa, 11 th Water and Engineering for Developing Countries (WEDC) Conference, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 146 Birdsall, N., & Nellis, J. (2003). Winners and losers: Assessing the distributional impact of privatization. World Development, 31(10), 1617-1633. Bohm, R., Essenburg, T., & Fox, W. (1993). Sustainability of potable water services in the Philippines. Water Resources Research, 29(7), 1955-1963. Botes, L., & van Rensburg, D. (2000). Community participation in development: Nine plagues and twelve commandments. Community Development Journal, 35(1), 41-58. Bowen, G. A. (2008). An analysis of citizen participation in anti-poverty programmes. Community Development Journal, 43(1) 65 – 78. Braadbaart, O. (2002). Private versus public provision of water services: does ownership matter for utility efficiency? Journal of Water Supply Research and Technology-Aqua, 51(7), 375-388. Brager, S., & Torczyner (1987). Community Organizing. Columbia University Press. Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing Methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Bridgen, P. (2004). Evaluating the empowering potential of community-based health schemes: the case of community health policies in the UK since 1997. Community Development Journal, 39(3), 289 -302. Briscoe, J. (2005). India’s Water Economy: Bracing up for a turbulent future, keynote address at the 4 th annual partners meet of IWMI-Tata water policy research program. Institute of Rural Management Anand, 26-29. Briscoe, J., & de Ferranti. (1988). Water for rural communities: Helping people help themselves. World Bank: Washington DC. 147 Briscoe, J. Chakraborty, M., & Ahmed, S. (1981). How Bengali villagers choose sources of domestic water. Water Supply and Management, 5(2), 165-181. Brooks, D. B. (2002). Water: Local-level Management (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre), aussi disponible en francais comme L’ eau: gerer localement Brooks, D. B. (2006). An operational definition of water demand management. International Journal of Water Resource Development 22(4), 521-528. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman. Budds, J., & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Environment and urbanization, 15(2), 87 – 114. Burkey, S. (1993). People first: a guide of self-reliant participatory rural development. Zed Books Ltd. Byliss, K., & Fine, B. (2007). Privatization and alternative public sector reform in sub-saharan Africa: Delivery on electricity and water. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Cabrera, A.F. (1994). Logistic regression analysis in higher education: An applied perspective. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol 10, 225-256. Calderon, C., & Serven, L. (2004). The effects of infrastructure development on growth and income distribution. Policy Research Working Paper 3400. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105. 148 Caracelli, V. J., & Green, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed method evaluation designs. In J.C. Greene & V.J. Caracelli (Eds.) Advances in mixed methods evaluation: The challenge and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74 pp. 19- 32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Carter, R. C., Sean F. Tyrrel., & Howsam, P. (1999). The impact and sustainability of community water supply and sanitation programs in developing countries. Water and Environmental Management Journal, 13(4), 292-296. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Routledge. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), 1437-1454. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology Publication Ltd. Chattopadhyay, R. & Duflo, E. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409-1443. Chitonge, H. (2014) Cities beyond networks: The status of water services for the urban poor in African cities. African Studies, 73 (1), 58 – 83. Clasen, T., Cairncross, S., Haller, L., Bartram, J., & Walker, D. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of water quality interventions for preventing diarrhoeal disease in developing countries. Journal of Water and Health, 5(4), 599 - 608. Clasen, T., & Bastable, A. (2003). Feacal contamination of drinking water during collection and household storage: the need to extend protection to the point of use. Journal of Water Health, 1, 109 -115. 149 Clarke, G., Kosec, K., & Wallsten, S. (2004). Has private participation in water and sanitation improved coverage? Empirical evidence from Latin America. Policy Research Working Paper 3445, World Bank, Washington, DC. Clarke, R. G., & Wallsten, S. J. (2002). Universal(ly Bad) Service: Providing Infrastructure Service to Rural and Poor Urban Consumers (Vol. 2868). World Bank, Development Research Group, Regulation and Competition Policy. Cleaver, F. (1996). Community management of rural water supplies in Zimbabwe, unpublished PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich. Cohen J. M., & Uphoff, N. (1977). Rural development participation. Cornell University. Cole, G. (1921). The future of local government. London. Cassell and Company Ltd. Conroy, R. (2006). Contamination of drinking water between source and point-of-use in rural households of South Africa and Zimbabwe: Implications for monitoring the Millennium Development Goal for water. Water Practice & Technology, 1(2). Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking participation; models, meaning and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269 – 283. Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1989). The analysis of binary data (2 nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall. Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal of project management, 23(1), 7-16. Creswell, J. W., Plano C.V., Guttmann, M. L., & Hanson, E.E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research design. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 150 Crigg, N. S. (1996). Water resources management, principles, regulation and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crook, R., & Manor, J. (1998). Democracy and decentralization in South Asia and West Africa. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Cross, P., & Morel, A. (2005). Prop-poor strategies for urban water supply and sanitation service delivery in Africa. Water Science & Technology, 51(8), 51- 57. Crouch, B., & Chamala, S. (1979). Agricultural extension and education. United Kingdom: John Wiley. Das, P. (2009). Promise or compromise? Community managed water supply for the urban poor in Madhya Pradesh, India, Unpublished PhD dissertation at the University of California, Los Angeles. Davis, J. (2005). Private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 145-183. Dayal, R., van Wijk, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2000). Methodology for participatory assessments – Linking sustainability with demand, gender and poverty. Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank, IRC, Washington. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: Praeger. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deverill, P. (2001). Sharing it our – introducing water demand strategies for small towns (London and Loughborough, UK: Water and Environmental Health). 151 DFID, (2000). Strategies for achieving the International Development Targets: Addressing the Water Crisis – Healthier and more productive lives for the people. Ditcher, T.W. (1992). Demystifying popular participation (Institutional Mechanics for popular participation). Paper presented at the workshop on participatory development, Washington, DC 26-27 February. Doe, R.S, & Khan, S.M. (2004). The boundaries and limits of community management: Lessons from the water sector in Ghana. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 360 – 371. Drucker, P. F. (1998). Peter Drucker on the profession of management. Harvard Business Press. Dukeshire, S., & Thurlow, J (2002). Challenges and Barriers to community participation in policy development. Rural Communities Impacting Policy Project. Egunjobi, L., & Maro, P. (1985). Community self-help in the provision of drinking water in Ince, M. (ed) Water and Sanitation in Africa, 11 th Water and Engineering for Developing Countries (WEDC) Conference, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, pp.44-47. Elliot, C. (1976). Patterns of poverty in the Third World. London: Praeger. Engel, S., Iskandarani, M., & del Pilar Useche, M. (2005). Improved water supply in the Engel Ghanaian Volta Basin: who uses it and who participates in community decision making, Intl Food Policy Re Inst. Esman, M. J., & Uphoff, N. (1984). Local Organization: Intermediaries in Rural Development. London: Cornell University Press. Estache, A., & Kouassi, E. (2002). Sector organization, governance and the inefficiency of African water utilities. (Vol. 2890) Governance, Regulation, and Finance Division, World Bank Institute. 152 Estache, A., & Rossi, M (1999). Comparing the performance of public and private water companies in the Asia and Pacific region: What a stochastic cost frontier shows, (Vol. 2152). World Bank Publications. Estache, A., & Rossi, M.A. (2002). How different is the efficiency of public and private water companies in Asia? The World Bank Economic Review 16(1), 139 -149. Fals-Borda, O. (1988). Knowledge and people power. New Dehli: Indian Social Institute. Finsterbusch, K., & Van W. (1987). The contribution of beneficiary participation to development project effectiveness. Public Administration and Development, 7(1), 1-23. Finsterbusch, K., & Van W. (1989). Beneficiary Participation in Development Projects: Empirical Test of Popular Theories. Economic Development and Cultural Change 37(3), 573-593. FAO, (1987). The impact of development strategies on the rural poor, Rome. Fonjong, L., Emmanuel, N., & Fonchingong, C. (2005). Rethinking the contribution of indigenous management in small-scale water provision among selected rural communities in Cameroon. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6(4), 429 – 451. Franceys, R. (2008). Water and Sanitation for the urban poor. In Franceys, R. & Gerlach, E. (Eds.), Regulating Water and Sanitation for the poor. London: Earthscan. Fuest, V. (2005). Demand-oriented community water supply in Ghana: Policies, Practices and outcomes (Vol. 2): LIT Verlag Munster. Fuglesang, A., & Chandler, D. (1986). Participation as process: What we can learn from Grameen bank, Bangladesh. Olso: NORAD. 153 Galjart. B., & Buijs, D. (eds) (1982). Participation of the poor in development. Leiden: University of Leiden, Institute of Cultural and Social studies. Galjart. B. (1981). Participatory development projects: Some conclusions from research, Sociologia Ruralis (Assen, Netherlands), 21(2), 142-159. Gamble, D. N., & Weil, M.O. (1995). Citizen participation, In R.I Edwards (Ed.). Encyclopedia of social work (19 th ed.), pp. 483-494, Washington, DC: NASWP Press. Gandhi, M. K. (1962). Village Swaraj. Ahmedabad India: Navajivan Publishing House. Gary, I. (1996). Confrontation, co-operation or co-optation: NGOs and the Ghanaian state during structural adjustment. Review of African Political Economy, 23(68), 149 – 168. Gaynor, N. (2013). The tyranny of participation revisited: international support to local governance in Burundi. Community Development Journal, May 31. Ghai, D., & Vivian, J. (2014). Grassroots environmental action: people’s participation in sustainable development. London: Routledge. Gleick, P. (2000). A look at twenty-first century water resources development. Water International, 25(1), 127-138. Gleick, P. (2003). Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21 st century. Science, 302(5650), 1524-1528. Gleick, P. (2014). The World’s water volume 8. The Biennial report on freshwater resources (Vol 8). Island Press. Gleick, P., Cooley, H., Katz, D., & Lee, E. (2006). The world’s water 2006 – 2007: The biennial report on freshwater resources. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gran, G. (1985). Development by people. New York: Praeger. Green,J. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 154 Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed- method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255 - 274. Guyani, S., Talukdar, D., Jack, D., (2010). Poverty, Living Conditions, and Infrastructure Access. The World Bank, Africa Region. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 2 nd edition, London: Routledge. Hanson, B. (2008). Wither qualitative/quantitative? Grounds for methodological convergence. Quality and Quantity, 42(1), 97 - 111. Hardoy, J., Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2014). Environmental problems in an urbanizing world: finding solutions in cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London: Routledge. Hardoy, J., & Ruete, R. (2013). Incorporating climate change adaptation into planning for a liveable city in Rosario, Argentina. Environment and urbanization, 25(2), 339 – 360. Harvey, P., & Reed, R. (2007). Community-managed water supplies in Africa: Sustainable or dispensable? Community Development Journal, 42(3), 365 - 378. Hickey. S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Towards participation as transformation: Critical themes and challenges, in S. Hickey and G. Mohan, eds Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation. London and New York: Zed Books. Hofmann, P., Strobl, J., Blaschke, T., & Kux, H. (2008). Detecting informal settlements from Quickbird data in Rio de Janeiro using an object based approach. In Object-based image analysis (pp. 531-553). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 155 Hopewell, M., & Graham, J. (2014). Trends in access to water supply and sanitation in 31 major sub-Saharan African cities: an analysis of DHS data from 2000 to 2012. BMC public health, 14(1), 2008. Hosmer Jr, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2004). Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons. Huchzermeyer, M., & Karan, A. (2006). Informal settlements, a perpetual challenge? Juta and Company Ltd. Huchzermeyer, M. (2004). Unlawful occupation: Informal settlements and urban policy in South Africa and Brazil. Africa World Press. Hukka, J., & Katko, I. (2003). Refuting the paradigm of water services privatization. Natural Resource Forum, 27(2), 142 – 155. Hung, M. F., & Chie, B. T. (2013). Residential water use: efficiency, affordability, and price elasticity. Water Resources Management, 27(1), 275-291. Hutton, G., Haller, L., & Bartram, J. (2007). Global cost benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. Journal of Water Health 5, 481-502. Ika, L. A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6 - 19. Ioris, A. R. (2007). The troubled Water of Brazil: Nature commodification and social exclusion. Capitalism and Nature Socialism, 18(1), 28 – 50. IRC, (1999). Integrated Water Resource Management in Water and Sanitation Projects, Lessons from Projects in Africa, Asia and South America, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Deft, The Netherlands. Isham, J., & Kahkonen, S. (2001). Institutional determinants of the impact of community-based water services: Evidence from Sri Lanka and India. 156 Isham, J., & Kahkonen, S. (2002). How do participation and social capital affect community- based water projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia. The role of social capital in development: An empirical assessment 155-87. Isham, J., Narayan, D., & Pritchett, L. (1995). Does participation improve project performance? Establishing causality with subjective Data. The World Bank Economic Review, 9(2), 175-200. Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minutes, improvisations, and crystallization. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks. Jean-Jacques, Rousseau (1762). Du contrat social ou principes du droit politiqu. France. Johnson, J., Gismondi, M., & Goodman, J. (2006). Nature’s Revenge: Reclaiming Sustainability in an age of corporate globalization. Broadview Press. Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed Methods Research, A research Paradigm whose times has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kabila, R. (2002). Participation evaluation of community based water and sanitation programs; The case of central Tanzania, unpublished PhD Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan Kansas. Kerf, M., & Smith, W. (1996). Privatizing Africa’s infrastructure: Promise and challenge (Vol. 337). World Bank Publications. Khan, S., & Anjum, G.A. (2013). Role of citizen community boards in promoting participatory development in Muzaffargah District Pakistan. Pak J. Engg. & Appl. Sci, 12, 43 – 59. 157 Khawja, A. I. (2002). Can good projects succeed in bad communities? Collective action in public good provision. Harvard University Press. Kirkpatrick C., Parker, D., &Ying-Fang Zhang (2004). State versus private sector provision of water services in Africa, A statistical, DEA and Stochastic cost frontier analysis. The World Bank Economic Review, 20(1), 143 -160. Kisumu City Development Strategies (2009). Lake Victoria Region City Development Strategies for Improved Urban Environment and Poverty Reduction, Prepared by Kisumu City Council and Center for Development & Planning Management [online - http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/3589_41974_kisumu_cds - accessed 8 May 2013). Kjellen, M. (2000). Contemporary water systems in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: the case of water vending. International Journal of Water Resources Development 16(1), 14 -154 Kjellen, M., & McGranaham, G. (2006). Informal water vendors and the urban poor. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development. Kleemeier, E. (1995). From supply driven to demand driven provision of rural drinking water. A Tanzanian Case Study of the Arguments for a Transition. Center for Udviklingsforkning. Kleemeier, E. (1998). The operation and maintenance of small rural piped gravity schemes in Malawi. Center for Development Research, Copenhagen. Kleemeier, E. (2000). The impact of participation on sustainability: An analysis of the Malawi Rural Piped Scheme Program. World Development, 28(5), 929 - 944. Korten, F.F. (1981). Community participation: A management Perspective on obstacles and options in David C. Korten and Felipe B. Alfonso (eds) Bureaucracy and the Poor: Closing the Gap: Singapore: McGraw-Hill. 158 Kok, P., & Gelderblom, D. (1994). Urbanization South Africa’s Challenge, volume 11 planning, Human Science Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. Koundouri, P. (2004). Current issues in the economics of groundwater resource management. Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(5), 703 – 740. Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied researchers (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lane, J. (2006). Improving water and sanitation services in rural areas: Lessons learned from Ghana, Lesotho and South Africa. In L. Fox & R. Liebenthal (Eds.), Attacking Africa’s Poverty: Experience from the Ground (pp.257-284). Washington: The World Bank. Larson, A. M., & Ribot, J.C. (2004) Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens: An introduction. European Journal of Development Research, 16(1), 1-25. Laxer, G., & Soron, D. (2006). Not for sale: Decommodifying Public life. University of Toronto Press. Laws of Kenya, (2010). The constitution of Kenya, Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney General. [Online https://www.kenyaembassy.com/pdfs/The%20Constitution%20of%20Kenya ] Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265-275. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lindskog, R. U., & Lindskog, P. A. (1988). Bacteriological contamination of water in rural areas: an intervention study from Malawi. The Journal of Tropical medicine and hygiene, 91(1), 1 -7. 159 Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count. The improvement of social research theory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lieberson, S. (1992). Einstein, Renoir and Greeley: Some thoughts about evidence in sociology. American Sociological Review, 57(1) 1-15. Lockwood, H. (2003). Post-project sustainability: Follow-up support to communities. Daft, World Bank, Washington DC. Maine, H. (1876). Village communities in the East and West. London: John Murray. Manikutty, S. (1995a). Community participation in water and sanitation projects: Kerala Case Study. Available from UNDP/World Bank Regional Water and Sanitation Group, New Delhi. Manikutty, S. (1995b). Community participation in Water and Sanitation Projects: Karnataka case study. Available from UNDP/World Bank Regional water and sanitation group, New Delhi. Manikutty, S. (1997). Community participation: So what? Evidence from a comparative study of two rural water supply and sanitation projects in India. Word Development Policy review, 15(2), 115-140. Manikutty, S., Mavalankar, D., & Bhatt, A. (1996). Community participation in rural drinking water and sanitation projects: A comparative study of five projects in India. New Delhi: UNDP/World Bank Regional Water and Sanitation Group. Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-Based and Driven Development: A critical Review. World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1 – 39. Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing Development – Does Participation Work? World Bank Publications. 160 Maoulidi, M. (2011). Health needs assessment for Kisumu, Kenya MCI Social Sector Working Paper Series No 19/2011. Maoulidi, M. (2012). Kisumu Millennium Development Goals multi-sector household survey. Mathbor, G. (2008). Effective community participation in coastal development. Lyceum Books. Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-299. McCommon, C., Warner, D., & Yohalem, D. (1990). Community Management of rural water supply and sanitation services. In Community management of rural water supply and sanitation services. McDonald, D., & Ruiters, G. (2005). The age of commodity: Privatizing water in Southern Africa. London: Earthscan. McGranahan, G., & Mulenga, M. (2009). Community Organization and alternative paradigms for improving water and sanitation in deprived settlements. Water and Sanitation Services: Public Policy and Management 173. McIntosh A., & Yniguez C. (1997). Second Water utilities data book Asian and pacific region. Asian Development Bank. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education (2 nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, London: Sage Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son. Mill, J. S. (1879). Chapters on Socialism. Forthrightly Review 25(February): 217-37; March: 373-82; April: 513-30. 161 Mishra. A. D. (2002). Rediscovering Gandhi. New Delhi: A Mittal Publication. Mitchell, B. (2005). Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land- use planning. Environment and Planning, 37(8), 1335 – 1352. Mohammadi, H. (2010). Citizen participation in urban planning and management. The case of Iran, Shiraz city, Saadi community, Kassel. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Application to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. Methodological implications of combining qualitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48 – 76. Morrissey, J. (2000). Indicators of citizen participation: Lessons from learning teams in rural EZ/EC communities. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal, 35(1), 59 – 74. Mosse, D. (2002). “People’s Knowledge, Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development.” In Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A sourcebook, ed D. Narayan, Washington DC: World bank. Myers, G.A. (2003). Verandas of Power: Colonialism and Space in Urban Africa. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Naegele, J. (2004). What is wrong with full-fledged water privatization? Journal of Law & Social Challenges, 6, 99 – 130. Nagle, J. W. (1992). Policy and practice of community participation in the U.S. Agency for International Development. Harvard Institute for International Development. Naiga, R., Penker, M., & Hogl, K. (2012). From supply to demand driven water governance: challenging pathways to Safe Water Access in Rural Uganda. 162 Nance, E., & Ortolano, L. (2007). Community Participation in Urban Sanitation Experiences in Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3), 284 – 300. Narayan, D. (1995).The contribution of people’s participation: evidence from 121 rural water supply projects. In Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No. 1. The World Bank. Narayan-Parker, D. (1988). People, pumps and agencies: the South Coast Handpump Project. PROWESS/UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. New York. Ngnikam, E. (2008). Water supply in Cameroon: Case study of Limbe Town. Power-point slides presented at the conference on Water and Urban Services in Africa held in Barcelona, 20- 22 November 2008. Nicole, A. (2000). Adopting a sustainable livelihoods to water projects: Implications for policy and practice. OD1 Working paper 133, Overseas Development Institute, London UK. Njoh, A. J. (2003). Self-help water supply in Cameroon- Lessons on community participation in public works projects. The Edwin Mellen Press. Njoh, A. J. (2002). Barriers to community participation in development planning; Lessons from Mutengene (Cameroon) self-help water project. Community Development Journal, 37(3), 233 – 248. Njoh, A. J. (2003). Planning in contemporary Africa: The state, Town Planning and Society in Cameroon. Aldeshot: Ashgate. Njoh, A. J. (2006). Determinants of success in community self-help projects: the case of the Kumbo water supply scheme in Cameroon. International Development Planning Review, 28(3), 381 – 406. 163 Njon, A. J. (2010) Municipal councils, International NGOs and citizen participation in public infrastructure development in rural settlements in Cameroon. Habitat International 36(1), 101-110. Norton, M. R. (2014). Water security: pipe dream or reality? A global perspective from the UK. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(1), 11-18. Nyerere, J. K. (1967). The Arusha Declaration, in Nyerere (1968) 231-250. Nyerere, J. K. (1968). Freedom and socialism: A selection from Writings and Speeches. 1965- 1967. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oakley, P., & Marsden, D. (1984). Approaches to participation in rural development, International labor Office, Geneva. Oakley, P. (1991). Projects with people: The practice of participation in rural development, International Labor Office, Geneva. Olmstead, S. M., & Stavins, R. N. (2007). Managing Water Demand: Price vs. Non-Price Conservation Programs. A pioneer institute white paper, (39). Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2004). Mixed method and mixed model research. In R.B Johnson & L.B. Christensen, Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (pp. 408-431). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281 – 316. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research and application. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. 164 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Owuor, S. 0., & Foeken, D. (2012). from self- help group to water company: The Wandiege Community Water Supply Project (Kisumu, Kenya) Transforming innovations in Africa: Explorative studies on appropriation in African societies, 127-147. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49 – 62. Panayotou, T. (1997).The role of the private sector in sustainable infrastructure development. In Bridges to Sustainability: pp. 46-68. New Haven, CT: Yale School for Environmental studies. Parfitt, T., (2004). The ambiguity of participation: a qualified defense of participatory development. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 537-555. Pateman, C. (1976). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3 rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects: the World Bank experience. The World Bank Discussion Papers, No.6. The World Bank, Washington DC. Pearse, A., & Stiefel, M. (1979). Inquiry into participation, Geneva UNRISD. Peet, J. (2003). Priceless: a survey of water. The Economist, 3-5. 165 Perry, G. K. (2009). Exploring occupational stereotyping in the new economy. The intersectional tradition meets mixed methods research. In M.T. Berger and K. Guidroz (Eds.), The Intersectional Approach: Transforming the Academy through Race, Class and Gender. Petrova, V. (2006). Note. At the frontiers of the rush for blue gold: Water privatization and the human right to water. Brooklyn Journal of International law, 31, 577 – 613. Platteau, J. P. (2004). Monitoring elite capture in Community-Driven development. Development and Change, 35(2), 223 – 246. Platteau, J. P., & Abraham, A. (2002). Participatory development in the presence of endogenous community imperfections. Journal of Development Studies, 39(2), 104 – 136. Pohlman, J. T., & Leitner, D. W. (2003). A comparison of ordinary least squares and logistic regression. Ohio Journal of Science 103(5), 118 – 125. Postel, S. (1997). Last Oasis, facing water scarcity. New York: Norton and Company. Prasad, N. (2006). Privatization results: Private sector participation in water services after 15 years. Development Policy Review, 24(6), 669-692. Prasad, N. (2007). Privatization of Water: A historical perspective. Law, Environment and Development Journal 3, 217 [online http://www.lead-journal.org/content/07217 - accessed 1/2/2014]. Prokopy, L. S. (2004). Women participation in rural water supply projects in India: is it moving beyond tokenism and does it matter? Water Policy, 6(2), 103 - 116. Prokopy, L. S. (2002). The relationship between participation and project outcomes: A study of rural drinking water projects in India. Department of City and Regional Planning, UNC Chapel Hill. http://www.lead-journal.org/content/07217 166 Prokopy, L. S. (2005).The relationship between participation and project outcomes: Evidence from rural water supply projects in India. World Development, 33(11), 1801-1819. Prokopy, L. S. (2009). Determinants and benefits of household level participation in rural drinking water projects in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 45(4), 471-495. Prokopy, L. S., & Thorsten, R. (2005). An evaluation of rural drinking water projects in Cuzco, Peru: The role of Post Construction Support. Report to the World Bank. Pruss-Ustun, A.,Bos, R., Gore, F., & Bartram, J. (2008). Safer water, better health; cost, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Rahman,M. A. (1985). Participation of the rural poor in development. Geneva, ILO Mimeographed. Rahman,M. A. (1987). Theoretical and methodological questions in the promotion of people’s participation in rural development. Geneva, ILO. Mimeographed . Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice, A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage Publication. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research, second ed. Blackwell, Oxford. Rogers, P., Silva, R. D., & Bhatia, R. (2002). Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water policy, 4(1), 1-17. Rogers, P., & Hall, A. W. (2003). Effective water governance. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. Roling, N. (1987). “Extension and the development of human resources: The other tradition in extension education” in G.E. Jones (ed): Investing in rural extension: Strategies and goals. New York and London, Elsevier. 167 Rondinelli, D. A. (1991). Decentralizing water supply services in developing countries: factors affecting the success of community management. Public administration and development, 11(5), 415 - 430. Roy, B. (2002). Villagers dump role in water supply. The Times of India, (September, 2 2002). Russ, L. W., & Takahashi, L. M. (2013). Exploring the Influence of Participation on Programme Satisfaction: Lessons from the Ahmedabad Slum Networking Project. Urban Studies, 50(4), 691-708. Ryan, B., Scapens, R.W., & Theobald, M. (2002) Research Method & Methodological in Finance & Accounting, 2nd edition. Thomson, London. SANA. (2014). End year Report 2014, Water Development Area, Kisumu City, Submitted by Francis Ndiso, Kisumu City. Sara, J., & Davis, J. (2012). Does user participation leads to sense of ownership for rural water systems? Evidence from Kenya. World Development, 40 (8), 1569 – 1576. Sara, J., & Katz, T. (1998). Making rural water supply sustainable: Report on the impact of project rules. Washington DC. The World Bank. Satterthwaite, D. (2014). Urbanization in low-and-middle-income nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The companion to development studies, 279. Savedoff W. D., & Spiller, P. T. (1999). Spilled water: Institutional Commitment in the provision of water services. Washington, DC: Inter-Am. Dev. Bank . Savenije, H. H. G., & van der Zaag, P. (2002). Water as an economic good and demand management: paradigms and pitfalls, Water International, 27(1), 98-104 Scanlon, J., Cassar, A., & Nemes, N. (2004). Water as a human right, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 168 Schouten, T, & Moriarty, P. (2003). Community water, community management: From system to service in rural areas. London. International Technology Development Group. Secor, A. (2010). Social Surveys, Interviews and Focus Groups. In Research Methods in Geography by B. Gomez and J. Jones 111, 194-206. Oxford: Blackwell. Shenhar, A. J., & Wideman, R. M. (1996, May). Improving PM: Linking success criteria to project type. In Project Management Institute Symposium: Creating Canadian Advantage through Project Management, Calgary. Shirley, M. (2002). Thirsting for efficiency: The economics and politics of urban water system reform. London: Elsevier. Shirley, M., & Menard, C. (2002). Cities Awash: Reforming Urban Water Systems in Developing Countries. In M. Shirley, ed., Thirsting for efficiency: the Economics and Politics or Urban Water System Reform. Elsevier Press. Sikes, P. (2000). Truth and Lies Revisited. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 257- 270. Smith, J. (1991). A methodology for twenty-first century sociology. Social forces, 70(1) 1-17. Smith, K. (1994). Community management in rural water supply in Indonesia: Some lessons from Indonesia. World Bank Workshop on Participatory Development, Washington D.C. Social Policy and Development Center, (1996). NGO Capability and Community Participation in the Rural Water Supply Sector in Pakistan, December 1996, Karachi. Solomon, S. (2010). Water, the epic struggle for wealth, power and civilization. Harper Collins Publishers. Stigler, P. E. (2013). Water, culture and environmental health: Understanding community based planning to improve health outcomes in vulnerable populations (Order No. 3609393). 169 Stiefel, M., & Wolfe, M., (1994). A voice for the excluded. Popular participation in development: Utopia or necessity. Zed Books. Stoker, G. (1997). Local Political Participation in Hambleton, R et al New Perspectives on local governance: reviewing the research evidence, Joseph Rowntree Foundation pp 157-196. Stottmann, W. (2000). The role of the private sector in the provision of water and wastewater services in urban areas in Uitto, J. & Biswas, K. (eds) Water for urban areas: Challenges and perspectives. Tokyo: United States University Press. Swapan, M. H. (2014). Realities of community participation in metropolitan planning in Bangladesh: A comparative study of citizens and planning practitioner’s perception. Habitat International, 43(2014), 191-197. Sydenstricker-Neto, J. M. (2004). Land-cover change and social organization in Brazilian Amazonia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4 th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Sage. Therkildsen, Ole. (1988). Water White Elephants? Lessons from Donor Funded Planning and Implementation of Rural Water Supplies in Tanzania. Scandinavian Institute for African Studies. Thompson, T., Sobsey, M., & Bartram, J (2003). Providing clean water, keeping water clean: an integrated approach, International Journal of Environmental Health research 13(S1) 89- 94. 170 Thorsten, R. (2007). Predicting sustainable performance and household satisfaction of community-oriented rural water supply projects – A quantitative evaluation of evidence from Ghana and Peru, PhD dissertation submitted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Torres, C. (2012). Urban access to water supply and sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Background Report. Available online. Trawick, P. (2003). Against the privatization of water: An indigenous model for improving existing laws and successfully governing the commons. World Development 31(6), 977 - 996. Uitto, J., & Biswas, A. (2000). Water for urban areas: Challenges and perspectives. United Nations University Press. UN DESA, (2004). OECD Global forum on sustainable development; financing water and environmental infrastructure for all. Background paper 6. Available online. UN Environmental Programme (2002). Global environmental outlook 3: Past, present and future perspectives. New York: Earthprint. UNCHS, (2006). Meeting development goals in small urban centers: Water and sanitation in the world’s cities 2006. London: Earthscan. UN-ESA, (2008). World urbanization prospects – the 2007 revision highlights. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. UN-Habitat Global report, (2012). State of Water and Saniation in the World cities – Looking ahead to 2050 – Patel School of Global Sustainability and UN-Habitat. UNICEF, (2010). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. 171 Uphoff, N. T. (1996). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for participatory development and post-Newtonian social science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Valinas, G. (2005). Efficiency and equity in natural resources pricing: a proposal for urban water distribution service. Environmental & Resource Economics, 32(2), 183 - 204. Van der Bruggen, B., Borghgraef, K., & Vinckier, C. (2010). Causes of Water Supply Problems in Urbanized Regions in Developing Countries. Water Resources Management, 24(9), 1885 – 1902. Verbeek, M. (2002). A Guide to Modern Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, UK. Water and Sanitation for Health Project, (1994). The sustainability of donor-assisted rural water supply projects. WASH Technical Report. 94. Westergaard, K. (1986). People participation, local government and rural development: The case of West Bengal, India. CDR Research Report – Copenhagen Center for Development Research. Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model: Linking success criteria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411 - 418. White, G., Bradley, D., & White, A. (1972). Drawers of Water: Domestic Water Use in East Africa, University of Chicago Press. Whittington, D., Lauria, D. T., Okun, D. A., & Mu, X. (1989). Water vending activities in developing countries: a case study of Ukunda, kenya. International Journal of water Resources Development, 5(3), 158-168. World Bank (1993) WATER Resources Management. A world Bank Policy Paper. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 172 World Bank (1996). The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, the International Bank for reconstruction and development. Washington D.C. World Bank (1998). Demand Responsive Approaches to community water supply; Moving from policy to practice, East and Southern Africa World Bank. World Bank (2004). Towards water secure Kenya: Water Resources Sector Memorandum, Washington D.C. World Bank (2006). Managing water resources to maximize sustainable growth: A country water resources assistance strategy for Ethiopia, Washington D.C. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (2001). Multi-village Rural Water Supply Schemes: An emerging Challenge . World Health Organization (1994). Financial Management of Water Supply and Sanitation: A Handbook. World Health Organization/UNICEF (2008). Progress on drinking water and sanitation: special focus on sanitation. New York: UNICEF, Geneva: WHO. World Health Organization (1992). Our Planet, Our Health: Report of the WHO commission on Health and Environment, Geneva, World Health Organization. World Water Forum, (2000). Ministerial Declaration on The Hague on Water Security in the 21 st Century. http://www.worldwaterforum.coin/journalist/frameset.html. Wraight, C. D. (2008). Rousseau’s The Social Contract: A reader’s Guide. London: Continuum Books. WRI (World Resources Institute) (2003). World Resources: 2002-2004. Washington, DC. World Resources Institute. 173 Wright, A. M. (1997). Toward a strategic sanitation approach: Improving the sustainability of urban sanitation in developing countries. UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington D.C. Wright, J., Gundry, S., & Conroy, R. (2004). Household drinking water in developing countries: a systematic review of microbiological contamination between source and point‐of‐use. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 9(1), 106-117. Yacoob, M., & Walker, J (1991). Community management in water supply and sanitation project: Cost and implication. Aqua: journal of the International Water Supply Association, 40(1), 30 – 44. Young, M. D., & MacDonald, D. H. (2003). An opportunity to improve water trading in the south east catchment of South Australia. Water policy , 5(2), 127 – 146. 174 APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL LETTER 175 176 APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in this study. Overall this study is interested in evaluating the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. It is part of a dissertation study for Erick Oniango Ananga who is a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida, Tampa Florida United States. If you choose to take part in this study, we will ask you a few questions about water and sanitation services in your community. The total amount of time for you to take part in this study is approximately 30 minutes. We do not know of any risks from taking part in this research. If we learn of any we will let you know. We do not expect you to individually benefit from taking part in this research and your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take part. If you decide to take part now, you can change your mind at any time. You are free to stop taking part in this study at any time for any reason without penalty. If you decide you do not want to stay in the study, all data related to your participation will be destroyed. In regards to confidentiality, your name will not appear in any report or publication of the research. Your informed consent form will be safely stored in a locked facility and only the researchers will have access to this information. There is no compensation for participating in this study. If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free to contact Erick Oniango Ananga telephone number 254722805810 or email erickananga@mail.usf.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in the study you can call Research Integrity and Compliance at the University of South Florida at 813-974-5638. The USF ID number for this study is Pro00015949. By signing this form you as a participant hereby do accept that you understand the nature of this project and its risks and benefits and have had the opportunity to ask questions and to have your questions answered to your satisfaction. You hereby freely give consent to take part in this research. _______________________ _________________ _______________ Signature of Participant Name of Participant Date _______________________ ____________________ _______________ Signature of Investigator Name of Investigator Date 177 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATER PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT: LESSONS FROM SUSTAINABLE AID IN AFRICA INTERNATIONAL SPONSORED WATER SCHEMES IN KISUMU, KENYA I am …………………………………………. collecting data on behalf of Erick Oniango Ananga who is a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida, Tampa Florida, United States of America. Erick is undertaking a research on the effectiveness of community participation theory in water production and management. Specifically his proposed study will seek to analyze the relationship between community participation and outcomes in the water domain in urban informal settlements in the city of Kisumu, Kenya. This questionnaire survey will help the study in understanding the context specific effects of community participation in water production and management. Where you live fall within his study area which is serviced by a community water service scheme supported by Sustainable Aid in Africa International (SANA). We would therefore like to request to ask you a few questions about water and sanitation services in your community. Your house has been selected randomly for this survey. The fact that you have been chosen is thus quite coincidental. The information you give to us will be kept strictly confidential and are basically for the study purpose only. Your personal details such as your name and your address will not be shared by anyone else. The interview will take about 30 minutes of your time. Date of Interview Day Month Year Time interview commenced Interviewer ID Time interview ended Data entry ID 178 PART 1 – HOUSEHOLD DETAILS Q1. Water scheme serving the respondent community 1. Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme 2. Obunga Water and Sanitation Scheme 3. Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme 4. Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme Q2. Gender of the respondent 1. Male 2. Female Q3. Who is the head of this Household? 1. Husband 2. Wife 3. Female single headed 4. Male single headed 5. Child headed Q4. How many people live in this house? 1. 1 person 2. 2 persons 3. 3 persons 4. 4 persons 5. 5 persons 6. 6 persons 7. 7 persons 8. More than 7 persons Q5. How many are (a) Male……………….. (b) Female……………... Q6. How many of your household members belong to these age categories? Age Brackets (Years) No (a) Day 1 – 10 (b) 11 - 20 (c) 21 - 30 179 (d) 31 - 40 (e) 41 - 50 (f) Above 50 Q7. What is the respondent highest level of education? 1. No formal education 2. Primary level 3. Secondary level 4. Diploma level 5. University level Q8. What is the respondent spouse highest level of education? 1. No formal education 2. Primary level 3. Secondary level 4. Diploma level 5. University level 6. Not applicable Q9. How many years have you been living in this settlement 1. Less than one year 2. 2 – 5 years 3. 6 – 10 years 4. Above 10 years Q10. What is the household main source of income? 1. Wage employment 2. Artisan/ Blacksmith 3. Salaried employment 4. Trading /small business 5. Other specify………………………… Q11. What is the household monthly income? 1. Kshs. 5,000 and below 2. Kshs. 5,001 – 10,000 3. Kshs. 10,001 – 15,000 4. Kshs. 15,001 – 20,000 5. Kshs. 20,001 – 25,001 6. Kshs. Over 25,001 7. Don’t know 180 Q12. What is the household monthly expenditure? 1. Kshs. 5,000 and below 2. Kshs. 5,001 – 10,000 3. Kshs. 10,001 – 15,000 4. Kshs. 15,001 – 20,000 5. Kshs. 20,001 – 25,001 6. Kshs. Over 25,001 7. Don’t know PART 11 – WATER SITUATION IN THE HOUSEHOLD Please can you tell me the different sources and uses of water for your household, indicate how you perceive its quality and how satisfied you are with the management committee of the water source you often use. Q13. What is your main source of water? 1. Community managed water kiosk 2. Piped individual community managed 3. Private vendor 4. Borehole 5. Rain Harvesting/roof catchment 6. Well 7. Spring 8. River 9. Lake 10. Other specify………….………………… Q14. If your main source of water is community managed water kiosk or piped individual community managed scheme then what was your main source of water prior to the implementation of the community water scheme 1. Private vendor 2. Borehole 3. Rain Harvesting/roof catchment 4. Well 5. Spring 6. River 7. Other specify…………………………………. Q15. If your main source of water is community managed water kiosk or piped individual community managed scheme then averagely how long does it take you to fetch water now? 1. 0 – 10 minutes 181 2. 11 – 20 minutes 3. 21 – 30 minutes 4. More than 30 minutes 5. Don’t know Q16. How long did it used to take you to fetch water prior to the implementation of the community managed water scheme? 1. 0 – 10 minutes 2. 11 – 20 minutes 3. 21 – 30 minutes 4. More than 30 minutes 5. Don’t know Q17. Between 2013 and 2014, what is your perception about water reliability in your community? 1. Improved 2. Same 3. Worse off Q18. Averagely how much do you pay for water per month? 1. Kshs. 500 and below 2. Between Kshs. 501 and 1,000 3. Between Kshs. 1,001 and 1,500 4. Between Kshs, 1,501 and 2,000 5. Between Kshs, 2,001 and 2,500 6. Between Kshs. 2,501 and 3,000 7. Between Kshs. 3,001 and 3,500 8. Over Kshs. 3,500 9. Free (I don’t pay for my water) Q19. Are you conversant with water tap handling? 1. Yes 2. No Q20. Is your main source of water reliable? 1. Yes 2. No Q21. If main water source is not reliable, what is your alternative source? 1. Use storage/reservoir 2. River water 3. Borehole 182 4. Other (specify)………………………………….. Q22. What do you mainly use water for? 1. Domestic 2. Industrial 3. Both Q23. Have you ever provided paid or unpaid labor to the community managed water scheme in your area? 1. Yes 2. No Q24. Do you always pay your water bills in time? 1. Yes 2. No Q25. Are you still willing to continue paying your water bills in time? 1. Yes 2. No Q26. Are you willing to contribute money or time for an expansion of the community managed water scheme? 1. Yes 2. No Q27. Has your water supply been interrupted over the past year? 1. Yes 2. No Q28. If answer to Q27 is yes, how frequently has it been interrupted? 1. More than once a week 2. Once a week 3. Once a month 4. Once in six months 5. Once a year 6. Not applicable 183 Q29. How long was the interruption the last time it occurred? 1. A few hours 2. A day 3. A few days 4. A week 5. More than a week 6. Not applicable Q30. What was the cause of interruption? 1. Broken Pipes 2. Dry spell 3. Power disconnection 4. Any other 5. Not applicable Q31. Have you ever experience pipe vandalism in your community? 1. Yes 2. No Q32. Are you willing to intervene if you ever experience pipe vandalism in your community? 1. Yes 2. No Q33. Have you ever attended a public meeting during the last 2 years where water and sanitation service provisioning issues were discussed? 1. Yes 2. No Q34. Who organized the public meeting? 1. County Government bodies 2. Local municipality 3. Political party/ ward councilors / members of parliament 4. SANA International 5. Local groups 6. Not applicable Q35. What was the main theme of discussion in the meetings you have ever attended? (Interviewer: Do not read out options. Let the respondent answer then tick) 1. Water pricing 2. Addressing consumer complaints 184 3. Water conflict resolution 4. Improvement of water sources 5. Regulation of the water management committees 6. Developing sustainable and transparent incentives for community water users 7. Water conflict resolution 8. Any other 9. Not applicable Q36. Did the public meeting lead to any improvement in the water service within the informal settlement? 1. Yes 2. No Q37. Have you or any member of your household made a complaint about your water supply/quality issues over the past 3 years? 1. Yes 2. No Q38. Who did you or your household made a complaint to? 1. Municipality 2. Water vendors 3. Landlord/employer 4. SANA International 5. Our selves 6. Not applicable Q39. What was the result of the complaint? 1. Action taken in a day 2. Action taken in a few days 3. Action taken in a week 4. Action took several weeks 5. Action took more than a month 6. No action taken 7. Not applicable Q40. Overall, how satisfied are you and your household with the management work of the committee responsible for managing your main source of water? 1. Satisfied 2. Not Satisfied Q41. Do you have confidence in the people/institution involved in the supply of water and sanitation service in your settlement? 185 1. Yes 2. No Q42. Indicate the extent to which you trust or distrust the following institution at present Strongly trust Trust Neither Trust nor distrust Distrust Strongly distrust Do not Know a) KIWASCO 1 2 3 4 5 6 b) SANA International 1 2 3 4 5 6 c) Private Water Vendors 1 2 3 4 5 6 d) Land Lords 1 2 3 4 5 6 e) Politicians 1 2 3 4 5 6 f) Kenya Government 1 2 3 4 5 6 PART 111 – HOUSEHOLD WATER AND SANITATION SITUATION Q43. What is your perception of current access to clean portable water supply in your community? 1. Accessible 2. Not accessible Q44. How do you perceive the quality of your main source of water? 1. Good 2. Average 3. Poor Q45. How do you perceive the cleanliness around main water sources in your community? 1. Clean 2. Dirty Q46. Are you satisfied with the color of your water? 1. Yes 2. No 186 Q47. Are you satisfied with the smell of your water? 1. Yes 2. No Q48. Do you clean and cover your water storage containers? 1. Yes 2. No Q49. Has any member of your household suffered from any of the following water related disease/condition recently (past 6 months prior to data collection)? 1. Cholera 2. Typhoid 3. Scabies 4. Bilharzia 5. None Q50. If yes did you visit a doctor’s clinic? 1. Yes 2. No Q51. Are you willing to protect areas around water points in your community from contamination? 1. Yes 2. No Q52. What is your main source of information on water safety system (storage, handling, treatment)? 1. Ministry of water 2. Government of Kenya 3. SANA International 4. Media 5. Other (Specify) Q53. Do you have a toilet in your household? 1. Yes 2. No Q54. If yes what type of toilet do you have? 1. Pit latrine outside the house 2. Flush latrine 187 3. Communal latrine 4. Not applicable Q55. What is your perception about the status of your toilet? 1. Clean 2. Fair 3. Dirty 4. None Q56. If your response in Q55 above in NO, then where do you go when you need a toilet? 1. Bush 2. Flying toilet 3. Dig small hole and cover 4. Neighbors toilet 5. Not applicable Q57. Is there any general comment you may want to add to water situation in your area? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME 188 APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR WOMEN FOCUS GROUPS Major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes Overall this study is interested in evaluating the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. It is part of a dissertation study for Erick Oniango Ananga who is a candidate at the University of South Florida. Specifically for this session we are interested in learning the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the schemes. Having a better understanding of these factors will enable policy makers to devise strategies that will lead to better management of urban based community operated water resources. You are being asked to participate in this discussion because you belong to one of the women groups in the four water schemes selected for the case study. If you choose to take part in this inquiry, we will ask you to engage in a discussion in the form of a focus group of approximately 8 people. You will be required to share your experiences regarding the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the scheme in your community. The focus group will be audio taped and later transcribed for analysis. We do not know of any risks from taking part in this research. If we learn of any we will let you know. We do not expect you to individually benefit from taking part in this research and your participation in this inquiry is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take part. If you decide to take part now, you can change your mind at any time. You are free to stop taking part in this study at any time for any reason without penalty. If you decide not stay in the study, all data related to your opinion will be destroyed. In terms of confidentiality, your name will not appear in any report or publication of the research. Your consent form will be safely stored in a locked facility and only the researchers will have access to this information. There is no compensation for participating in this study. If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free to contact Erick Ananga telephone number +254722805810 or email erickananga@mail.usf.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in the study you can call Research Integrity and Compliance at the University of South Florida at 813-974-5638. The USF ID number for this study is Pro00015949. By signing this form you as a participant hereby do accept that you understand the nature of this project and its risks and benefits and have had the opportunity to ask questions and to have your 189 questions answered to your satisfaction. You hereby freely give consent to take part in this research. _______________________ _________________________ _______________ Signature of Participant Name of Participant Date _______________________ _________________________ _______________ Signature of Investigator Name of Investigator Date 190 APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOCUS GROUPS Major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. It is part of a dissertation study for Erick Oniango Ananga who is a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida. Specifically for this session we are interested in learning the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the schemes. Having a better understanding of these factors will enable policy makers to devise strategies that will lead to better management of urban based community operated water resources. You are being asked to participate in this discussion because you are in the management committee of one of the four water schemes selected for evaluation. If you choose to take part in this inquiry, we will ask you to engage in a discussion in the form of a focus group of approximately 8 people. You will be required to share your experiences regarding the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the scheme in your community. We do not know of any risks from taking part in this research. If we learn of any we will let you know. We do not expect you to individually benefit from taking part in this research and your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take part. If you decide to take part now, you can change your mind at any time. You are free to stop taking part in this study at any time for any reason without penalty. If you decide that you do not want to stay in the study, all data related to your participation will be destroyed. In terms of confidentiality, your name will not appear in any report or publication of the research. Your consent form will be safely stored in a locked facility and only the researchers will have access to this information. There is no compensation for participating in this study. If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free to contact Erick Ananga telephone number 254722805810 or email erickananga@mail.usf.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in the study you can call Research Integrity and Compliance at the University of South Florida at 813-974-5638. The USF ID number for this study is Pro00015949. By signing this form you as a participant do hereby accept that you 191 understand the nature of this project and its risks and benefits and have had the opportunity to ask questions and to have your questions answered to your satisfaction. _____________________ _________________________ _______________________ Signature of Participant Name of Participant Date _______________________ ______________________ ________________________ Signature of Investigator Name of Investigator Date 192 APPENDIX F: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR WATER CONSUMER FOCUS GROUP DISCUSIONS Major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. It is part of a dissertation study for Erick Oniango Ananga who is a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida. Specifically for this session we are interested in learning the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the schemes. Having a better understanding of these factors will enable policy makers to devise strategies that will lead to better management of urban based community operated water resources. You are being asked to participate in this discussion because you are a member of a water consumer group in one of the four water schemes selected for evaluation. If you choose to take part in this inquiry, we will ask you to engage in a discussion in the form of a focus group of approximately 8 people. You will be required to share your experiences regarding the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the scheme in your community. The focus group will be audio taped and later transcribed for analysis. We do not know of any risks from taking part in this research. If we learn of any we will let you know. We do not expect you to individually benefit from taking part in this research and your participation in this inquiry is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take part. If you decide to take part now, you can change your mind at any time. You are free to stop taking part in this study at any time for any reason without penalty. If you decide you do not want to stay in the study, all data related to your opinion will be destroyed. In terms of confidentiality, your name will not appear in any report or publication of the research. Your consent form will be safely stored in a locked facility and only the researchers will have access to this information. There is no compensation for participating in this study. If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free to contact Erick Ananga telephone number +254722805810 or email erickananga@mail.usf.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in the study you can call Research Integrity and Compliance at the University of South Florida at 813-974-5638. The USF ID number for this study is Pro00015949. By signing this form you as a participant hereby do accept that you understand the nature of this project and its risks and benefits and have had the opportunity to ask questions and to have your 193 questions answered to your satisfaction. You hereby freely give consent to take part in this research. _______________________ ______________________ _______________ Signature of Participant Name of Participant Date _______________________ _________________________ _______________ Signature of Investigator Name of Investigator Date 194 APPENDIX G: INTRODUCTION SCRIPT AND QUESTIONING ROUTE FOR WOMEN GROUPS FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Good morning everybody and welcome to this session of our discussion. My name is Erick Oniango Ananga. I am a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida and I am here with Mrs. Rosemary Moi who is a program coordinator at SANA International. We are grateful for accepting to participate in this Focus Group Discussion (FGD). This study involves gathering information meant for evaluating the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. Specifically it is our hope that the information gathered here will increase our knowledge on the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes established by SANA International in this settlement. Our findings will not only benefit the community here in Kisumu but also other NGOs around the world working on urban water service provisioning. As a member of a women group in this scheme your experiences and views are very important to us. As you are all aware there are several factors which may influence the success or failures of urban based community managed water schemes so feel free to share your experiences and views even if they are different from other group members. In order to moderate this discussion in an orderly manner, I will request all the participants to speak one at a time. We request that you select the name you would prefer to use during the entire session of the discussion and place it in front of you. During the discussion if you want to agree or disagree or add an opinion to what a member is saying then do feel free to interject. We request that for the entire session of the discussion, refer to fellow group member with the name they have selected and placed in front of them. The discussion will be audio taped and we request everyone to respect each other’s privacy by not disclosing the content of issues addressed here with non-participants. All your views will be confidential and only your chosen names will be included in the final report. The discussion will last approximately one hour. Jacob will be taking notes while I will be listening, asking questions and ensuring that everybody get a chance to participate. Before we proceed I would like everybody to go through the informed consent form supplied and sign it. The informed consent form provides the overall information about the study. Before we begin the discussion I would like to ask if any of the group members 195 have a question. Questions are addressed after which the tape recorder turned on then the session begins. Women Group FGD Questioning Route Opening question We will start with everybody saying their selected names and their role in the women group serviced by the water scheme. Introductory questions I1.How long have you been a member of this women group and what do you enjoy most as a member of a women group serviced by this water scheme? I2. Since the establishment of the scheme what impacts do you think the scheme has created in this settlement in regards to water service delivery? Transition questions- What are your opinions as a group about this water schemes as to whether it is a success or failure as a project? T3. What factors do you think have contributed to the management success of this water scheme? T4. What factors do you think have impeded or slowed the success of this water scheme? T5. What factors do you think could have improved the success of this water scheme? Key Questions K6. Reflect back and make a list of four of the most important factors you think have influenced the management success of your water scheme. In a few minutes you will have an opportunity to share your views with the other team members. K7. Again reflect back and make a list of four of the most important factors you think have impeded the management success of your water scheme. In a few minutes you will have an opportunity to share your views with other team members. K8. Again reflect back and make a list of four most important factors you think could have improved the success of this water scheme Ending question E11. Our discussion of today was meant to help us understand factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes. Before we conclude the discussion I would like to invite anyone who may want add anything we may have missed. 196 APPENDIX H: INTRODUCTION SCRIPT AND QUESTIONING ROUTE FOR WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES FOCUS GROUP DISCUSIONS Good morning everybody and welcome to this session of our discussion. My name is Erick Oniango Ananga. I am a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida and I am here with Mr. Jacob Ochola who is a program coordinator at SANA International. We are grateful for accepting to participate in this Focus Group Discussion (FGD). This study involves gathering information meant for evaluating the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. Specifically it is our hope that the information gathered here will increase our knowledge on the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes established by SANA International in this settlement. Our findings will not only benefit the community here in Kisumu but also other NGOs around the world working on urban water service provisioning. Your experiences and views are very important to us because most of you have worked in this water scheme since its establishment. There are several factors which may influence the success or failures of urban based community managed water schemes so feel free to share your experience even if it is different from other group members. In order to moderate this discussion in an orderly manner, I will request all the participants to speak one at a time. We request that you select the name you would prefer to use during the entire session of the present discussion and place it in front of you. During the discussion if you want to agree or disagree or add an opinion to what a member is saying then do feel free to interject. We request that for the entire session of the discussion refers to fellow group member with the name they have selected and placed in front of them. The discussion will be audio taped and we request everyone to respect each other’s privacy by not disclosing the content of issues addressed here with non-participants. All your views will be confidential and only your chosen names will be included in the final report. The discussion will last approximately one hour. Jacob will be taking notes while I will be listening, asking questions and ensuring that everybody get a chance to participate. Before we proceed I would like everybody to go through the informed consent form supplied and sign it. The informed consent form provides the overall information about the 197 study. Before we begin the discussion I would like to ask if there are any questions. Questions are addressed after which the tape recorder turned on then the session begins. Water Management Committee FGD Questioning Route Opening question We will start with everybody saying their selected names and their role in the water management committee in this scheme. Introductory questions I1.How long have you been a member of this management committee and what do you enjoy most as a member of the management committee serviced by this water scheme? I2. Since the establishment of the scheme what impacts do you think the scheme has created in this settlement in regards to water service delivery? Transition questions- What are your opinions as a management committee about this water schemes as to whether it is a success or failure as a project? T3. What factors do you think have contributed to the management success of this water scheme? T4. What factors do you think have impeded or slowed the success of this water scheme? T5. What factors do you think could have improved the success of this water scheme? Key Questions K6. Reflect back and make a list of four of the most important factors you think have influenced the management success of your water scheme. In a few minutes you will have an opportunity to share your views with the other team members. K7. Again reflect back and make a list of four of the most important factors you think have impeded the management success of your water scheme. In a few minutes you will have an opportunity to share your views with other team members. K8. Again reflect back and make a list of four most important factors you think could have improved the success of this water scheme Ending question E11. Our discussion today was meant to help us understand factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes. Before we conclude the discussion I would like to invite anyone who may want to add anything we may have missed. 198 APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION SCRIPT AND QUESTIONING ROUTE FOR WATER CONSUMER GROUP FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Good morning everybody and welcome to this session of our discussion. My name is Erick Oniango Ananga. I am a PhD candidate at the University of South Florida and I am here with Mr. Jacob Ochola who is a program coordinator at SANA International. We are grateful for accepting to participate in this Focus Group Discussion (FGD). This study involves gathering information meant for evaluating the role of community participation in water production and management in urban informal settlement. Specifically it is our hope that the information gathered here will increase our knowledge on the major participatory related factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes established by SANA International in this settlement. Our findings will not only benefit the community here in Kisumu but also other NGOs around the world working on urban water service provisioning. As an official of the water consumer group in this scheme your experiences and views are very important to us. As you are all aware there are several factors which may influence the success or failures of urban based community managed water schemes so feel free to share your experience even if it is different from other group members. In order to moderate this discussion in an orderly manner, I will request all the participants to speak one at a time. We request that you select the name you would prefer to use during the entire session of the discussion and place it in front of you. During the discussion if you want to agree or disagree or add an opinion to what a member is saying then do feel free to interject. We request that for the entire session of this discussion you should refer to fellow group member with the name they have selected and placed in front of them. The discussion will be audio taped and we request everyone to respect each other’s privacy by not disclosing the content of issues addressed here with non-participants. All your views will be confidential and only your chosen names will be included in the final report. The discussion will last approximately one hour. Jacob will be taking notes while I will be listening, asking questions and ensuring that everybody get a chance to participate. Before we proceed I would like everybody to go through the informed consent form supplied and sign it. The informed consent form provides the overall information about the 199 study. Before we begin the discussion I would like to ask if any of the group members have a question. Questions are addressed after which the tape recorder turned on then the session begins. Water Consumer Groups FGD Questioning Route Opening question We will start with everybody saying their selected names and their role in the water consumer group in this scheme. Introductory questions I1.How long have you been a member of this water consumer group and what do you enjoy most as a member of the consumer group serviced by this water scheme? I2. Since the establishment of this scheme what impacts do you think it has created in this settlement in regards to water service delivery? Transition questions- What are your opinions as a consumer group about this water scheme as to whether it is a success or failure as a project? T3. What factors do you think have contributed to the management success of this scheme? T4. What factors do you think have impeded or slowed the success of this water scheme? T5. What factors do you think could have improved the success of this water scheme? Key Questions K6. Reflect back and make a list of four of the most important factors you think have influenced the management success of your water scheme. In a few minutes you will have an opportunity to share your views with the other team members. K7. Again reflect back and make a list of four of the most important factors you think have impeded the management success of your water scheme. In a few minutes you will have an opportunity to share your views with other team members. K8. Again reflect back and make a list of four most important factors you think could have improved the success of this water scheme Ending question E11. Our discussion today was meant to help us understand factors which have influenced or can potentially influence management success or failures of the water schemes. Before we conclude the discussion I would like to invite anyone who may want to add anything we may have missed. 200 APPENDIX J: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR ALL FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS Participants Information Sheet 1. What is your chosen name for this discussion ……………………………… 2. What is the name of the scheme serving your community? 5. Wandiege Water and Sanitation Scheme 6. Obunga Water and Sanitation Scheme 7. Asengo Water and Sanitation Scheme 8. Paga Water and Sanitation Scheme 3. What is your age……………………………….………..… 4. How many people live in your household 1. 1 person 2. 2 persons 3. 3 persons 4. 4 persons 5. 5 persons 6. 6 persons 7. 7 persons 8. More than 7 persons 5. What is your highest level of education? 1. No formal education 2. Primary level 3. Secondary level 4. College level 5. University level 6. What is your main source of income 1. Wage employment 2. Artisan/Blacksmith 3. Salaried employment 4. Trading/Small business 5. Other specify 7. How long have you been a member of this women group/ Water consumer group or Ware Management Committee in this Scheme? 1. One year and less 2. 2 to 3 year 3. 4 to 50 year 4. Over 5 years 8. How many years have you been living in this settlement 1. One year and less 201 2. 2 - 5 years 3. 6 – 10 years 4. Above 10 years ABOUT THE AUTHOR I consider myself an International Development Planner/Human Geographer whose research focuses on Water and Sanitation issues in the developing world. I received a Bachelor’s of Arts Degree in International Development Studies with Economics major at the University of East Anglia Norwich UK. I also hold a Master of Arts in Politics and International Development from the University of East Anglia. My doctoral dissertation which is reported here involved examining the tenability of community participation (CP) theory in explicating water production and management dynamics in urban informal settlements. My research is inspired by the fact that in the developing world adequate water provisioning in urban centers still remains an elusive problem. While pursuing a Ph.D. degree at the University of South Florida, I have also been involved in several collaborative works. Apart from research, I have also been teaching as well as being involved in curriculum course development. I have taught World Regional Geography both the in class and online version of the course. I have also taught introduction to Environmental Sciences, Global Conservation and Global Environmental Perspectives. The interdisciplinary nature of my academic background and experience has equipped me well with the ability to teach courses in different disciplines. I can teach courses in geography, environmental sciences, international development, public policy, urban planning and politics. When Public Participation Isn’t Enough: Community Resilience and the Failure of Colorblind Environmental Justice Policies by Heather Lyne Arata A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Malo Hutson, Chair Jason Corburn Rachel Morello-Frosch Summer 2016 ProQuest Number: All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 10191291 10191291 2017 When Public Participation Isn’t Enough: Community Resilience and the Failure of Colorblind Environmental Justice Policies © 2016 By Heather Lyne Arata 1 Abstract When Public Participation Isn’t Enough: Community Resilience and the Failure of Colorblind Environmental Justice Policies by Heather Lyne Arata Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Malo Hutson, Chair Issues of health inequities and environmental hazards affect low-income communities of color throughout the US (Pastor et al, 2001; Morello-Frosch and Lopez, 2006). These communities are both rural and urban and located in every corner of the U.S., but one area of California hosts a disproportionate share of environmental hazards in the form of toxic facilities, pollution, and health disparities. One San Joaquin Valley community, Kettleman City in Kings County, California is an unincorporated and rural community lacking political representation in environmental and land-use decision-making processes. This lack of influence in decision- making has led to the Kings County Planning Commission permitting a large, Class I landfill near Kettleman City that residents believe has a negative impact on their health. Using a single case study of Kettleman City and an environmental justice framework, this dissertation examined how rural communities with few resources can utilize community-based strategies to be meaningfully involved in the permitting process of a hazardous, Class I facility. Relying on planning and legal documents, participant observations at public meetings in 2013 and 2014, archival research, and in-depth interviews with 22 residents, organizers, and government officials involved with the public meetings in 1990 and 2009, this study reveals the challenges and opportunities for meaningful involvement with the facility’s permitting process. By examining the community resident’s experiences with two permitting processes, their challenges, strategies, and resilience for inclusion in the process is demonstrated. These cases show the challenges and limitations for using public participation to achieve environmental justice, the barriers to challenging state permitting decisions, and what is needed from government officials to work toward achieving environmental justice. i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... III FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................ IV CHAPTER 1. THE HISTORY OF KETTLEMAN CITY, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND THE PERMITTING OF A CLASS I HAZARDOUS FACILITY ................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF A MOVEMENT: THE STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK AND STRATEGIES ............................... 28 CHAPTER 3: THE ROLES AND CHALLENGES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES & COMMUNITY RESIDENTS IN PERMITTING HAZARDOUS FACILITIES ........................ 54 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY RESILIENCE: 25 YEARS OF COMMUNITY-STRATEGIES 82 CHAPTER 5: INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................................................................................... 109 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................ 137 ii List of Figures Figure 1: Kettleman City Location in California ............................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Kettleman City and the Kettleman Hills Facility (KHF) in 2015 ................................... 5 Figure 4: The "Sea of Green Shirts" ............................................................................................. 97 Figure 5: Kettleman City Population Pyramids (1990 & 2010)………………………………..101 List of Tables Table 1: Demographics data for Kettleman City, Kings County, and California (2014) ............... 4 Table 2: The Final Seven LAC Recommendations ........................................................................ 9 Table 3: Waste Management Fines (1983-2013) .......................................................................... 13 Table 4. Timeline of Events in Kettleman City ............................................................................ 14 Table 5: Industry Categorization of Interviewees ......................................................................... 19 Table 6: CEQA Public Participation Requirements and Kings County Opportunities for the landfill expansion proposal ........................................................................................................... 58 Table 7: The Original Seven LAC Members Appointed in 2005 ................................................. 62 Table 8: LAC Members and their replacements 2005-2009 ......................................................... 65 Table 9: Final LAC Members, interests, and affiliations (2009) .................................................. 66 Table 10: Foreign born and immigration status, Kettleman City (1990-2010) ............................ 87 Table 11: Waste Management Fines (1983-2013) ........................................................................ 94 Table 12: Demographic Changes in Kettleman City from 1990-2014 ......................................... 99 Table 13: Percent Change in Age Group: 1990-2010 ................................................................. 100 Table 14: Birth Defects Count, Kettleman City 1987-2010 (aggregate years) ........................... 115 Table 15: Two-year rates of birth defects for live and fetal deaths (per 100 births), 1987-2011 116 iii Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the generous support from numerous people and organizations. First, I want to thank all of Kettleman City residents, community organizers and activists, and government officials who helped me understand their experiences permitting the Kettleman Hills Facility. El Pueblo and Greenaction were truly instrumental in helping me by speaking to me and allowing me access to the Greenaction archives. I am extremely grateful to the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) for their support throughout my time at UC Berkeley. My committee members, Malo Hutson, Jason Corburn, and Rachel Morello-Frosch discussed ideas, topics, and all around improved this work. I especially want to thank Dr. Morello-Frosch for her time spent editing and commenting on this dissertation. Along with my committee, other DCRP faculty members have been encouraging and supportive along the way, including Karen Frick, Carolina Reid, and especially Karen Christiansen with her writing group. Beyond the faculty, DCRP has generously funded my time at UC Berkeley and made it possible for me to pursue other opportunities on campus. Along with DCRP funding, I benefited immensely from financial support from the Berkeley Graduate Division, the UC Regent’s intern fellowship, and the Halstead Fund. In addition to support from DCRP, I also want to thank the Center for Research on Social Change (CRSC) and the Institute for Study of Societal Issues (ISSI) for their support this past year. These organizations provided mentorship, funding, and a comfortable space for conversations. Deborah Lustig and David Minkus were wonderful mentors for reading my work and giving detailed comments, but also helping with questions outside of academia. Beyond support at UC Berkeley, there are many people who helped make attending Berkeley a reality. Tonya Schuster, Andrew Noymer, Andrew Penner, and Susan Brown at UC Irvine all encouraged me to apply PhD programs. There was a time when Dr. Schuster was the only person I knew who had a PhD, and she was the first to convince me I could too. Last, but certainly not least I want to thank Jeremy Eastwood. Whether in London or San Francisco, he has been there at all hours of the day to talk through ideas and bring it all back to a reality. Thank you. iv Foreword The Central Valley is not simply a dissertation topic, but it’s where I am from and it’s a story worth writing about. So many interesting events and people have passed there touching other people’s lives, for the better or worse. The Valley is a place of extremes that catches people’s interest through the poverty, health issues, politics, landscapes, but for some it’s just a place you are passing through to get somewhere more interesting. When you can slow down and look around, taking time to know a person or place, you’ll find something interesting. You’ll find a story, and you’ll find a life. For me the Central Valley is a place of these extremes, but it is also more. Growing up in Stockton, CA I thought of myself as living the city, an urban area of 300,000 people seemed huge, but this was because it was surrounded by rural edges and unincorporated areas. I spent fifteen years of my life on this edge, living on the city border where we played in the canals and irrigation sloughs for the nearby agriculture. There were some things that were a way of life, like the poverty, crime, and political dysfunction, but these are not unique to Stockton. Watching the sunset over the delta, hunting for ducks on railroad tracks, picking fruit off trees in orchards, are also all things that make up life in Stockton. We were poor, but so was everyone else in the area. While poverty as a number is easily quantifiable, the experience of it is less so. My parents owned a car repair business, and for a while we were well off because we had a house and two cars, but then my dad got sick and couldn’t work and slowly all the material things had to go. What this meant for me was we were now like everyone else, living monthly on paycheck-to-paycheck, unsure of what to cut to pay the necessary bills like rent and utilities. This wasn’t an unusual place to be, and almost everyone was sick in some way with asthma, injuries, or cancers. The agency in my life also felt like it left with those material things as I had fewer choices and options for my life. I couldn’t always see a doctor when I was sick, I couldn’t always choose the healthier meal because I was on free lunch, I couldn’t choose to be involved with afterschool sports because they were expensive, and I couldn’t choose where to live because there were few places in the high school district that would accept section 8 housing. What I could control was where I worked afterschool, and being a white female who did well in school I could easily find a job to help out. I could also easily walk home from school or in any neighborhood without fearing the police. This privilege allowed me to seamlessly move from one economic class to another as I furthered my education, first at community college and UC Irvine, but then by attending University of Cambridge and UC Berkeley. By the time I was working on a PhD, there was little semblance left of my economic class growing up. This is when I started to see that the poverty in the Valley is a way of life that never leaves you. My view of the world developed there in the Central Valley. People are poor, but we don’t deserve to be treated differently. We are humans with the same desires, hopes, and dreams as anyone else. Being treated as you don’t matter disempowers you to believe you don’t, but everyone has the right to have a say in decisions that affect their lives, and we have a right to live, work, and play in places free from crime, intimidation, and environmental toxins. We have the right to be healthy. 1 Chapter 1. The history of Kettleman City, Waste Management, and the permitting of a Class I hazardous facility Issues of health inequities and environmental hazards affect low-income communities of color throughout the US (Pastor et al, 2001; Morello-Frosch and Lopez, 2006). These communities are both rural and urban, and located in every corner of the US, but one area of California hosts a disproportionate share of environmental hazards in the form of toxic facilities, pollution, and health disparities. The San Joaquin Valley, (SJV) or Central Valley, is comprised of eight counties stretching 450-miles that engenders an annual billion-dollar agriculture industry (EPA, Region 9 Strategic Plan, 2011-2014). This area is home to about 4.2 million people, with 46% of them identifying as Hispanic or Latino and many of first generation immigrants (The Planning Center, 2012), and also hosts some of the greatest health disparities in California (Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and San Joaquin Valley Place Matters Team, 2012). The Cal- EPA’s CalEnviroScreen tool highlights these inequities throughout the Central Valley showing the concentrations of pollution and health outcomes, such as asthma (OEHHA, 2014), and these pollution and health concerns are overrepresented in the rural and unincorporated areas of the Central Valley (Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and San Joaquin Valley Place Matters Team, 2012). One San Joaquin Valley community, Kettleman City in Kings County, California is an unincorporated, rural community lacking political representation in environmental and land-use decisions. This lack of influence in decision-making has led to the Kings County Planning Commission permitting a large, Class I landfill near Kettleman City that residents believe has a negative impact on their health. Kettleman City has suffered the disproportionate burden of housing the landfill, along with other impacts such as contaminated air and water. Since the early 1980s, the opponents of the landfill have been in conflict with the Kings County Planning Commission, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Department Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), and Waste Management Inc. (WM) to allow a proposed landfill expansion. In 1991 the planning commission approved an incinerator on the landfill site, but this permit was overturned through a community led lawsuit. Then in 2009 the same commission approved expanding the landfill by 50% or about 1,600 acres. Here Kettleman City residents organized and fought the proposal and approval by utilizing the political process available to them, the public participation opportunities for approving the expansion. These public participation opportunities provided by local and state government agencies proved necessary, but insufficient for involving the community in the process. This dissertation examined the experiences of Kettleman City residents with public participation in opposing both the incinerator and the landfill’s expansion, their strategies for engaging with less inclusive processes, and the institutional barriers to achieving environmental justice. Why study public participation in rural areas? While much of the profession of city planning focuses on creating sustainable, smart growth places, there are some places that are approved as toxic sites. Grigsby (1994) argued 2 planning decisions result in unequal benefits and costs to groups of people, and what is planned for the public is not always inclusive and does not always provide the same benefits as costs to communities of color. Places and situations like Kettleman City do not just occur, but are made through planning practices where the community voice is structurally omitted from the process. By not meaningfully including the community in their decisions, the Kings County Planning Commission has created a place that is not environmentally or socially sustainable. Kettleman City is neither environmentally or socially sustainable because of the multiple negative exposures in the area, with agriculture pesticides, the landfill, and unhealthy drinking water supply full of arsenic and nitrates. Thus, the community of Kettleman City is surrounded by cumulative exposures and multiple risks to human health. As architect and Civil Rights activist Carl Anthony has suggested in building a place that is ecologically sustainable, we have to start with “Who are the people? Where do they live? And what interest, what perspective, what hopes, what dreams, what contradictions, and what barriers do they bring to shaping a green city, to urban issues?” (Yuen et al, 1997, pg. 44). While it is important to know the people living in the area, we must also know what challenges exist to being meaningfully included in environmental and planning decisions. While public participation alone cannot solve the environmental and political issues in Kettleman City, it is one piece that must be addressed in working toward achieving environmental justice. It is crucial to the area because of the disadvantages such as the low-wage economy, the lack of political representation, and the numerous cumulative exposures in the area. There are cumulative impacts on health, but also cumulative impacts on structural inequalities negatively impacting public participation. Federal and state requirements to include the public in the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was to directly address community need for community voice, opinions, and concerns about the way land was being used in their communities was not being met. While legislation was able to provide these requirements with the intention communities would be included in future decisions, the way in which the process has been carried out has varied by government jurisdiction and with mixed outcomes. The question then isn’t if public participation can achieve a fair, balanced, and just decision, because alone it is not enough to create just outcomes, but rather it is a way of seeing the power imbalances that exist among community residents, project supporters and opponents, and private companies. Purpose Statement & Research Questions The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the challenges facing community residents, specifically opponents, with public participation in hazardous permitting decisions, and their strategies for being meaningfully included in the process. This dissertation was guided by the central question of how can rural communities with few resources already burdened by negative environmental and health impacts, utilize community-organizing strategies to engage with formal, less inclusive public participation processes on hazardous permitting decisions? Based on this question, this research explored three sub-questions: 1) How have the state and local public participation processes improved or changed overtime to include diverse opinions? 3 2) Have environmental justice laws and policies been able to support communities in opposing planning decisions that will increase pollution in their communities? Case Background& Selection Description & Demographics of Kettleman City Kettleman City is a rural farmworker community of 1,648 residents located in California’s Central Valley adjacent to Interstate 5 and Highway 41 (Figure 1). It is an unincorporated area and thus governed by the local government of Kings County Board of Supervisors instead of an elected local city government. The infrastructure in Kettleman City is limited as it lacks sidewalks, streetlights, and grocery stores. As shown in Table 1, the majority of Kettleman City residents are Hispanic (99%), and compared to Kings County and California, a higher percentage are foreign-born (42%), have lower education attainment, and lower median household incomes. In 2014, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) designated Kettleman City as one of California’s vulnerable places as measured with their CalEnviroScreen score putting the community in the 95th percentile of most vulnerable communities for environmental and health burdens because of the numerous health and environment justice challenges with their air and water quality, birth defects cluster, and other health concerns (OEHHA, 2014). Despite the social, political, economic, and health challenges facing the community, opponents to the landfill incinerator and expansion proposal have shown resilience to these challenges by continuing to being involved with the participation process and creating strategies to being more meaningfully involved. Figure 1: Kettleman City Location in California (Source: Google Earth Image) 4 Table 1: Demographics data for Kettleman City, Kings County, and California (2014) Demographics: Population Count Kettleman City Kings County California 1,648 151,390 38,066,920 Race/Ethnicity White African American Asian Hispanic American Indian Native Hawaiian Other race (one) Two or more races Total % 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 34.5% 6.2% 3.5% 52.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 100% 39.2% 5.7% 13.3% 38.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 2.7% 100% Foreign Born 42% 20% 27% High School Degree or Higher 42% 71% 82% Median Household Income $41,131 $47,341 $61,489 (Data Source: U.S Census, American Fact Finder, American Community Survey [ACS] 2010- 2014) While Kettleman City residents face numerous environmental health threats from increasing air and water pollution, and the burden of hosting the largest hazardous waste landfill on the West Coast less than four miles away (Figure 2), it is not unique with these burdens. Situated in the agricultural region of the Central Valley, Kettleman City is one place of many that are vulnerable to pollution, health concerns, and issues of environmental justice. While Kettleman City has a larger immigrant population than California (Table 1), immigration has always defined the Central Valley. According to a 2004 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) report that examined population data from 1970 to 2000, over half (58%) of the population growth in the Central Valley is attributed to migration (Johnson and Hayes, 2004). The report offers economic pull factors to the Central Valley as a dominant reason for this growth, as immigrants new to the U.S. are able to find affordable housing and employment opportunities here. These employment opportunities have been dominated by low paid agricultural labor leading the Central Valley to be characterized by low education attainment, high poverty, and limited English skills. Although many places in the Central Valley face similar environmental and health burdens, and demographics, what makes Kettleman City unique is their 25 years of community organizing against the landfill projects and their resilience to oppose these projects with few resources. History of Waste Management & Community Organizing in Kettleman City Waste Management (WM) has a long history in Kettleman City dating back in the late 1970s when they purchased the site of the landfill. Before Waste Management’s acquisition of the site, however, Kettleman City had already been established and sustained with the growing oil and later with the agriculture industry. In 1929 Manford Brown, a real estate developer, settled Kettleman City (County of Kings General Plan Update 2035, 2010), as the year before oil 5 was discovered in the Kettleman Hills drawing people to the area. The history of Kettleman City then was based on the discovery of the Kettleman Hills Oil fields and their rapid development. The Milham Exploration Company made these early oil discoveries, but within a year Standard Oil (Chevron) had surveyed the area and began drilling oil, in addition to building up the surrounding area for employees (Roberts, 2008). After oil dried up in the area, agriculture became the main industry, operated and managed through both large and small farms. Although the majority of oil has dried up in the area, Chevron still operates a permitted generator in the fields, which is part of the San Joaquin Valley Business Unit. As of 2015 this unit maintained 16,000 operational wells producing a yearly average 166,000 barrels of oil (Chevron, 2016). Despite the overall regional economy shift from oil production to agriculture, the history of oil remains in Kettleman City. Figure 2: Kettleman City and the Kettleman Hills Facility (KHF) in 2015 (Source: Google Earth Image) The main street intersections of “Petroleum Way” and “Standard Oil Ave” are reminders of the oil history, but so are the still standing Chevron refinery facilities, the oil contamination in the well water discovered as far back as 1984 (EDF, 1985) and the current fracking practices (Nidever, 2012; Southern Kern Sol, 2014). Although WM has been in Kettleman for over 35 years, many residents who owned homes there in 1979 were unaware of the facility (UCC, 2007). Upon learning of the landfill, community opponents to the landfill, the proposed incinerator, and expansion have been highly organized. The community has demonstrated 6 resilience to the toxic facility by continuing to oppose the largest waste management company in the world, despite resource limitations or political setbacks with the permit approvals. Early History of Waste Management in Kettleman City, 1979-1987 Chemical Waste Management Incorporated (CWMI)1, a subsidiary of Waste Management (WM), began accepting hazardous waste on the current site in Kettleman Hills in 19792. In 1979, WM bought the existing landfill and applied for expansion permits (EDF, 1985). Under WM the site is permitted with a Class I license allowing the most toxic of materials to be accepted. In 1985, the Kings County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a permit to 1) expand the site from 1280 acres to 1600 acres, 2) construct three new landfills, and 3) operate the facilities (known as the 1985 project). An EIR was required and prepared for the 1985 project, and only subsequent or supplemental environmental impact review (SEIR) was required for additional projects to modify the existing site. Late that same year in 1985, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) commissioned a report titled, “Nowhere to Go: The Universal Failure of Class I Hazardous Waste Dump Sites in California.” Here the researchers analyzed different waste sites in California highlighting the WM site in Kettleman Hills as a failure for Class I facilities. WM has represented the site to Kettleman City residents and property owners as the ideal site for a Class I facility because of its underlying geology, but according to the EDF study, hazardous wastes have seeped into groundwater in a well to a depth of 315 ft. The EDF researchers also found volatile organic compounds emitted in the air that were known carcinogens, and found that WM had been cited for numerous previous violations (EDF, 1985). In 1984, one year before the EDF study, EMCON Associates, WM’s engineer consultant reported to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board that organic material and chemical contaminants of “probable waste origin” were detected in a monitoring well on the Kettleman site, which seeped into the groundwater (EDF, 1985). Other evidence of contamination includes reports to the EPA showing the sites geology was not ideal for waste disposal and water tests showing raised total dissolved solids (TDS) levels (EDF, 1985). While this report sparked conversations among researchers and community groups, no government action was taken. This report assisted in publicizing violations at the Kettleman Hills because despite the landfill’s existence under WM for the past six years, the community only learned about it in 1989 due to the publication of EPA fines (Cole, 1994). The Incinerator Proposal, 1988-1993 In 1984 the California Waste Management Board hired Los Angeles consulting firm Cerrell Associates to identify potential sites for incinerator facilities. The Cerrell Associates 1 Chemical Waste Management Incorporated CWMI is referred to as Waste Management (WM) and Chem Waste throughout this dissertation. 2 Before 1979 the land was owned by McKay Trucking Company (MTC) to dispose of oily waste and drilling fluids since 1975. MTC operated their company on 60 acres of land, but in 1978 MTC was renamed Environmental Disposal Service (EDS) and was granted permits to expand the site to 210 acres and reclassify it as a Class I disposal facility (EDF, 1985). 7 (1984) report stated the ideal locations for incinerators were communities offering the least political resistance, which would be communities that are rural, poor, of low educational attainment, having populations under 25,000 residents, and communities largely employed in agriculture or other resource extraction (Cerrell Associates, 1984). While the Waste Management Board claimed they did not use this report when deciding to site the incinerator at the Kettleman Hills facility (Ward, 1987), in December 1987 WM filed an application for a permit to build a hazardous waste incinerator at the Kettleman facility. This application required numerous permits from local, state, and federal agencies, and while California law charges local governments with the responsibility of land use decisions, the county planning commissions manage local land use planning permits for unincorporated areas. As pursuant to the 1986 “Tanner Act,” in 1988 the Kings County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a Local Assessment Committee (LAC) to recommend benefits for the community should the BOS approve the permit. The Tanner Act passed the California legislature in 1986 and although it’s legal title is the California health and Safety Code §25199(c), it is abbreviated the Tanner Act named after the Senate member who introduced the bill, Sally Tanner (Cole, 1999). The main point of this bill was to make siting hazardous facilities more amenable in communities by providing them opportunities for involvement in the process and set requests of the company to benefit the community. The Act also allows the local government to tax the company up to 10% of their revenue (Cal Health & Saf §25173.5(a)), and in the case of the Kettleman Hills facility, this money goes into the Kings County general fund. This tax amounts to about 0.05% of the Kings County Budget as noted in their 2015-2016 county budget (County of Kings, Final Budget, 2015-2016). The Kings County Board of Supervisors (BOS) appointed a seven-member LAC who met over a period of 18 months, and in 1989 presented their final recommendations (Cole, 1999). These final recommendations included 37 items spanning 57 issues, which appeared inclusive with that many recommendations, but the process itself did not have community support (McDermott, 1993). The lack of community inclusion and support for the incinerator project evolved into a community led lawsuit against Kings County when the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the incinerator permit without a public meeting (Corwin, 1991). The lack of a public meeting for the vote was only one aspect of the limited opportunities available to residents, but then Board of Supervisor Les Brown called the vote without notice as he was on his way out from the board and a new Supervisor was coming in. The new supervisor, Abel Meirelles publically opposed the incinerator project and a vote after Meirelles took Brown’s seat could have meant the incinerator proposal would have failed. In 1991 Brown left the Kings County Board of Supervisors to join a lobby firm in Sacramento and in a Los Angeles Times interview stated he “plans to specialize in toxic issues and did not rule out representing Chemical Waste” (Corwin, 1991). After the BOS approved the permit, the community opposing the project filed a lawsuit. This lawsuit alleged Kings County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because they did not include the community in a meaningful way, and a civil rights claim for the site selection in a predominantly Hispanic community (El Pueblo Para el Aire y Agua Limpio v. Kings County, 1991). Although the civil rights claim was dismissed, the court did find the community was not able to be meaningfully involved in the permitting process based on the lack of translations of planning documents, namely the 1,000 plus page Environmental Impact 8 Review (EIR) (Environmental Law Reporter, 1992). This lawsuit, however, was the culmination of a long community led fight to oppose the incinerator that included the struggle to participate in the permitting process by opposing the LAC formation, attending public meetings and giving testimony, a letter writing campaign that sent 120 letters to the planning commission requesting translations of documents, forming a nonprofit organization, and speaking out publically with media attention (Cole, 1994). Although the court overturned the Board of Supervisor’s permit approval, in 1993 WM withdrew their permit citing a change in the economy (Associated Press, 1993). Expansion Proposal, 2005-2009 Landfill operations continued after the defeat of the incinerator, and relatively little changed with the site from 1987 to 2005. In 2005, WM filed for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to expand the site due to the facility approaching capacity (Kings County Local Assessment Committee, 19 October 2005). Since the EIR for the site was completed in 1985, only a Supplemental Environmental Impact Review (SEIR) was required as an update to the existing document. Chem2Hill, the same company that prepared the 1985 EIR, prepared and released the draft SEIR (DSEIR) for the expansion proposal on March 21, 2008 (CH2MHILL, 2008). This release was accompanied by a 45-day public comment period with the official close of the public comment period on May 7, 2008, marked by a public meeting in Hanford. During this 45-day period, copies of the DSEIR were made available to view at the county clerk’s office in Hanford, the Kings County Planning Agency in Hanford. Electronic versions of the document were available for free on CD-ROM, but printed-paper copies cost $380 (DTSC Fact Sheet, October 2013). In 2005 the BOS appointed a seven member Local Assessment Committee (LAC) to recommend terms and conditions that would make the expansion project acceptable to the community3 (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). During the 23 LAC meetings held from 2005-2008, issues of water quality and price, health concerns, community needs, air quality, and disaster preparedness were discussed at public meetings (LAC Meeting Minutes 2008-2009). While the LAC ultimately reached an agreement on their recommendations, this process was not without dispute from landfill expansion opponents as those who opposed the landfill expansion also opposed the LAC formation and process (Mares-Alatorre, 2008). In their efforts to be involved with the process, LAC opponents attended the public meetings and wrote letters along with a circulated a petition requesting a new committee. The opponent’s main objections to the LAC were the lack of Kettleman City representation and the lack of diversity in perspectives regarding the landfill expansion, as LAC members were outspoken supporters of the landfill expansion (Hanford Sentinel Forum, 2008; Yamashita, April 17 2008; Yamashita, April 29 2008).4 3 See chapter 3 for more information on the backgrounds of the LAC members. 4 See Chapters 3 and 4 for more information on the process and information on the challenges with the LAC formation, members, and process. 9 The LAC’s final list of issues to be considered was pared down to 11 actions, and from this 11 the board selected seven5 (Table 2) (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). As of the February 26, 2009 LAC meeting the potential list of recommendations was down to 10 items. From this list of 10 the three that were ultimately eliminated included WM paying $3.5 million for the construction of a new water treatment facility, WM paying to enroll every Kettleman City residents ages 0-18 in the Children Health Initiative (CHI) health insurance program in Kings County, and WM financing the construction of a new permanent bus shelter in Kettleman City at the intersection of General Petroleum Ave and Becky Pease Street (LAC Meeting Minutes, February 26 2009 Meeting Minutes). From the meeting minutes at the following meetings is the debate that occurred to pare down the list. As there is no set number of recommendations to agree on, the LAC could have recommended all 10, and they could have requested any action from WM. The March 5, 2009 meeting minutes show how LAC recommendations such as WM pay $3.5 million for construction of a new water treatment facility went to WM countering with offering to pay the water district’s debt, a significant sum of $525,000, but clearly much less than $3.5 million (LAC Meeting Minutes, March 5 2009). What is not in the meeting minutes, however, is any nuanced debate or discussion that occurred around each recommendation. Table 2: The Final Seven LAC Recommendations 1. CWMI will fund a community health survey up to $100,000, for Kettleman City residents to address health concerns including incidences of birth defects and cancer. 2. CWMI will pay the full debt as of March 19, 2009, estimated at $552,300, owed by the Kettleman City Community Services District (KCCSD). 3. CWMI will pay ten percent, up to $150,000, toward the construction of a Safe Crossing Project in Kettleman City, and pay $140,000 for two electronic speed indication devices. 4. CWMI will provide, in English and Spanish, the Kettleman City Library with US Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Transportation place cards and written definitions. They will also conduct an informal presentation regarding placement of the place cards. 5. CWMI will provide $450,000 to the Reef Sunset School District for the construction a new walking track, soccer field, lighting, pavilion, and parking lot at the Kettleman City Elementary School. 6. CWMI will provide annual community education about the Kettleman Hills Facility (KHF) contingency and disaster plans at an annual meeting. 7. CWMI will ensure that the independent consultants they hire to prepare air and water quality monitoring reports will prepare an annual summary in layperson’s terms in English and Spanish and deliver copies to all PO Box holders in Kettleman City, the Kings County Community Agency by May 1st every year they are in operation. They will also conduct an annual meeting in Kettleman City where the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the KCCSD, and other public agencies will provide information on emergency planning to local residents. 5 Kings County Community Development Agency has only made available LAC meeting minutes for meetings held from April 2008 to April 2009. (http://www.countyofkings.com/departments/community-development- agency/information/local-assessment-committee) 10 The seven recommendations (Table 2) became legal requirements for WM when they successfully obtained their permits for expansion from Kings County. In addition to these seven requirements, the LAC suggested 18 more to be considered by the BOS and local Kings County governments. These additional suggestions included requests such as assisting with a health survey, implementing a colored-flag system in the community to warn people of poor air quality days, establishing a crime prevention program, increasing animal control services, increasing public access for library computers, and identifying additional sources of funding for a new water treatment facility (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). Once the LAC recommendations were finalized, the DSEIR comments and concerns were addressed in a final SEIR (FSEIR). On May 6, 2009 the DSEIR was revised based on public comments received, and on September 18, 2009 the FSEIR was published (DTSC Fact Sheet, October 2013). With the FSEIR completed, the Kings County Planning Commission announced public hearings for the approval of the final document and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). On October 5, 2009 at 2pm and October 19, 2009, the Kings County Planning Commission held public meetings for approving the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Review (FSEIR) at the Kings County Fairgrounds in Hanford, about 35 miles east of Kettleman City (DTSC Addendum and Initial Study, 2013). According to DTSC, Kettleman residents were notified by mail that the FSEIR was available for review at the Kings County Community Development Agency in Hanford, at the KHF site, at the Kings County library in Hanford, the Kettleman City library in Kettleman, and the Avenal library in Avenal (DTSC Fact Sheet, October 2013). On October 19, the commission voted to unanimously adopt the FSEIR and approve the CUP (Kings County Planning Commission Meeting, 19 October 2009). In reaction to this decision community groups and a law firm filed an appeal to this decision that went to the Kings County BOS. The BOS were then required to hold a meeting to vote on the planning commission’s decision. They held two public hearings on December 7th and 22nd in Hanford where they voted unanimously to uphold the approval of the FSEIR and CUP (DTSC Addendum and Initial Study, 2013). Health Concerns and Investigation, 2007-2011 In 2007 the community groups El Pueblo and Greenaction documented a series of birth defects in the Kettleman City community6. They went public with their findings in 2007 and pushed for a larger countywide investigation by county or state officials (Leslie, 2010). An initial review of community concerns was addressed in 2009 when the Kings County Health Office, California Department of Public Health, and the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program reviewed health records for babies born to women living in Kettleman City from the years 1987- 2008, finding a spike in birth defects with babies born in 2008 (CBDMP, 2009)7. This finding became the basis for community group’s objections to the expansion proposal, as they knew people were sick, babies were born with birth defects, and three had subsequently died, but they did not know why. Using this information, the community demanded the state delay the permit expansion until they were able to investigate the birth defect cluster, and determine if there was a possible connection to the hazardous waste landfill in their community (Sahagun, 2009). 6 See chapter 5 for more information on the community led health study. 7 See chapter 5 for more information on the state led health study. 11 In January 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger directed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to investigate the birth defects in Kettleman City. The researchers focused their attention on babies born to Kettleman moms from 1987 to 2008 and used birth data from surrounding areas for comparison. They reviewed birth certificates and medical histories of the moms, and interviewed six moms of the 11 they identified. The interviewers used measures of lifestyle and behavior variables (smoking/drinking), occupational exposures, and potential effects from air and water. Researchers looked at each of these as potential individual causes and ruled out each individually being the cause, but they did not consider multiple exposures, cumulative impacts, or bio monitoring. Using methods that only considered one exposure at a time, and specifically looking at the landfill, the researchers concluded that causes of birth defects were difficult to isolate and they could not conclusively say what caused the increase in birth defects (CalEPA and CDPH, 2010). In addition to interviews with mothers, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) analyzed soil, air, and water samples in the summer of 2010. This time period, however, was five years after Waste Management filed for an expansion permit because the site was reaching capacity, meaning there were far fewer trucks bringing waste to the facility. While these tests confirmed other hazards, including low levels of lead in wells and unsafe levels of arsenic in the drinking-water supply, neither was considered to be a cause for the birth defects. Throughout the research process the CDPH held public meetings at the elementary school in Kettleman City to solicit community input on what to include in the report, and UC Davis researchers facilitated these meetings. In 2010 the CDPH released their initial findings showing there was a documented birth defects cluster in Kettleman City, but they could not point to a single cause (CalEPA and California Department of Public Health, 2010). The CDPH and CBDP later released an update to the initial report using data from 2010-2011 showing a decline in birth defects after 2008, which was interpreted as the birth defect cluster being a random chance (CBDMP, 2011). The Expansion Permitting Decision, 2014-2015 With the birth defects investigation completed and no known cause determined, permitting the expansion project moved forward. On July 2, 2013, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released a draft decision to approve the permit and allow Waste Management to increase the capacity of the hazardous waste landfill (DTSC Expansion Decision, 2013). CEQA requires the draft decision be subject to a 60-day public comment period, but due to a recognition of discriminatory practices on the part of Kings County planning commission, DTSC expanded the public comment period twice from September to October 11, and then again to October 25, 2013. The original date of Sept 4, 2013 was moved after two community groups challenged the EPA and DTSC stating the public had not been informed about the plans, and have not been treated in a fair way allowing for public participation (California Environmental Justice Network, October 2013). DTSC issued their permit for the facility on May 21, 2014 and opportunity to appeal their decision expired June 23, 2014 (DTSC Community Flyer, 2014). 12 By 2014 the KHF received all of the necessary county, state, and regional permits to expand the site and with a construction start date of June 2016 (Kings County Department of Public Health, 2016). Despite multiple lawsuits and Title VI complaints brought against Kings County at the state and federal levels, the courts have either dismissed the concerns or found in favor of Kings County (Grossi, 2014). While community groups and residents have opposed the process and outcome, not everyone in Kettleman and Kings County views the landfill as a negative for the community. As reported in newspapers, public comments at meetings, and interviews, some Kettleman City residents, along with residents in the nearby town of Avenal, business owners, and elected officials see hosting the landfill as a positive for the county. In an interview with a local business owner and WM supporter, his opinion was that Kettleman City needed WM because of the jobs and money they contribute to the economy, but also because, “If not here, where would it [the landfill waste] go?” This sentiment of the landfill and hazardous waste needing somewhere to go and the role of the landfill in the larger economy have been echoed across WM supporters, including politicians and government employees. In an October 6, 2009 Hanford Sentinel newspaper article then spokesperson for the KHF, Kit Cole, stated: It is because of the Kettleman Hills landfill that sites like PacBell (now AT&T) Park in San Francisco can be built, all of the lead paint from the Golden Gate Bridge could be cleaned up and the Archie Crippen Tire Fire site in Fresno could be cleaned up. It is a critical resource for the state of California as well as locally for businesses. (Yamashita, October 6 2009, pg. 1) The landfill does play an important role in the local and state economy, especially since there are only three of these landfills in California, and Kettleman is one of two that accepts this type of hazardous waste (DTSC Envirostor, 2016). WM and its supporters are quick to point to the economic benefits of the landfill that include 80 jobs, tax revenue, settlement money for the Kettleman City Foundation, and numerous donations in the form of services and resources (Waste Management Kettleman Hills Facility Website, 2016). California law requires Waste Management pays the county 10% of its revenue, which has amounted over one million dollars annually for the Kings County general fund (Nidever, June 30 2010). In addition to revenue for Kings County, WM is required to donate to the Kettleman City Foundation, an organization established during an earlier legal settlement between Kettleman residents and WM (Nidever, April 5 2006), and the company routinely supplies Kettleman City residents with bottled water (Nidever, April 9 2014). While residents opposing the landfill expansion will openly grant WM the point that they donate a lot of money to the schools and community center, they will also openly say they would rather not have the hazardous waste landfill in their community at the cost of losing those donations (Yamashita, October 6 2009). While supporters of the project state upfront the economic incentives for keeping the landfill, they also state they would not support the expansion if they believed it was unsafe. In a 2014 Los Angeles Times article, then DTSC director Debbie Raphael went as far as stating her message to Kettleman Resident is “You are safe” (Sahagun, May 21 2014, pg. 1). This safety assurance from the lead agency permitting the site’s expansion did little to alleviate fears with landfill opponents. These opponents hear DTSC state they are safe, but the Kettleman Hills Facility has faced numerous financial penalties for violations going back to 1983 (Table 3), as well as the 1985 EDF report showing the lining failed (EDF, 1985) and a slope failure in 1988 13 (Yamashita, December 13 2007). Although the 1985 EDF report termed the site a failure, the government did not produce this report, and at every stage multiple state and federal agencies reviewed the permit and health reports and determined the landfill does not pose a risk to the community. Table 3: Waste Management Fines (1983-2013)8 Year Violation (Source) Fine Amount 1983 EPA found 46 potential violations of the company’s Intermit Status Document (EDF, 1985). Unknown 1984 EPA cited 4 violations (EDF, 1985). $108,000 1985 RCRA and TSCA violations, 130 violations for leaks contaminating the local water and other violations (Miller, 1992). $1.9 million 1985 Penalties and remedial costs to resolve environmental problems, for mishandling of hazardous waste, including PCB (Miller, 1992). $4 million 1988 Fire at the landfill (Miller, 1992). $80,000 1989 11 violations in operations and environmental regulation (Miller, 1992). $363,000 2010 Allowed carcinogens to leach into soil (Wozniacka, 2010). $300,000 2013 Failure to report 72 spills (Nidever, March 28 2013). $311,000 From 1979 to 2016 WM has become an integral aspect of Kings County economy by providing services, jobs, and revenue to the county. WM’s donations to the school, community center, and bottled water Kettleman City have some Kings County residents seeing the landfill as a benefit to the county and Kettleman City, but not everyone is convinced the company is a benefit or that the company is safe. The numerous violations going back to 1983 and the birth defects cluster have left some Kettleman City residents unsure of the health effects of hosting the landfill, and they would rather forgo the donations than accept the facility’s expansion. Many of these landfill opponents participated in the public meetings for the permitting approvals, in both 1990 and 2009. Their experiences at these meetings varied based on the meetings logistics, such as time, location, and the agency hosting the meeting, and their ideas of public participation, especially meaningful public participation have developed through these experiences. To sum up this long history of WM in Kettleman City (Table 4), there were two main decision points that are the focus of this work: the approval of the landfill incinerator in 1991, which was stopped through a lawsuit, and the approval of the landfill expansion in 2009. The second decision came after much community opposition that delayed the permitting and construction for years. 8 For a complete list of inspections, violations, and fines see CWM Facility DTSC compliance history (DTSC CWM Facility Compliance History, 2013). 14 Table 4. Timeline of Events in Kettleman City Year Event 1979 Waste Management buys existing landfill and DTSC permits it for hazardous waste 1984 Cerrell Report completed for the California Waste Management Board 1988 Waste Management proposes an incinerator at the Kettleman Hills Facility (KHF) 1988 Kings County Board of Supervisors appoints an LAC for the incinerator 1990 Kings County Board of Supervisors approves the incinerator permit 1991 The California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) and El Pueblo file a lawsuit against the Kings County Board of Supervisors 1993 Waste Management withdraws their incinerator proposal 2005 Waste Management files landfill expansion proposal 2005 Kings County Board of Supervisors appoints an LAC for the expansion 2007 Community led health study uncovers birth defects cluster 2009 Kings County Community Development agency approves expansion permit 2009 CRLA and El Pueblo file an appeal of the Kings County Community Development agency’s expansion permit approval 2009 Kings County Board of Supervisors upholds the expansion permit approval 2010 El Pueblo, Greenaction for Health and the Environment, and CRLA demand the State of California investigate the birth defects in Kettleman City 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger requires the California Department of Public Health to investigate the birth defects in Kettleman City 2010 The California Department of Public Health and the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program investigate the birth defects finding no single cause of the cluster 2014 DTSC approved the expansion permit 2015 Waste Management receives all necessary permits to expand the landfill Relevance and Contribution of the Study This study is both timely and relevant to the fields of planning, environmental justice, environmental policy and history, and inclusive governance due to the proliferation of environmental justice agendas, policies, and practices at the federal, state, and local levels in planning agencies. In this way, the movement for environmental justice has impacted cities and places around the U.S, as well as the world. In California the environmental justice movement has been further strengthened from community led wins with increased environmental and health regulation of toxic facilities and polluting industries with the recognition that everyone has the right to a clean environment, regardless of race or income. Although environmental justice began as a grassroots movement and the issues have been taken up by government agencies, the continued push for change still comes from local communities affected by environmental justice issues. 15 The environmental justice movement has shaped the regulation of pollution in low- income and communities of color by expanding environmental and health regulations, as well as opportunities for meaningful inclusion with government and city planning decisions impacting communities (Foster, 1998; Bullard and Johnson, 2000; Brulle and Pellow, 2006). In California there are now environmental justice policies in every state government agency regulating the environment. In 1970 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Handbook, 2016) passed after the federal version of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and while CEQA does not regulate land use, it requires government agencies to follow a protocol for analyzing environmental impacts and makes environmental protection a mandatory part of government agencies’ decision-making process. These Acts require public participation to be included in their process and procedures, even highlighting the importance of including the public in decisions (CEQA Handbook, 2016). In 1999, California passed what has become known as the first environmental justice law, SB 115, as it required the CalEPA to define environmental justice and develop an environmental justice mission (Sen. Bill 115). The trend around environmental decisions has been to include concepts of environmental justice with public participation, along with an acknowledgement these decisions have a disproportionate and disparate impact on low-income communities of color. Although the movement for environmental justice has been successful in implementing more environmental justice policies and agendas with environmental and planning agencies, less if known on how these policies are able to support communities opposing pollution or toxic industries in their communities. From a planning perspective, not enough is known about the challenges facing communities to engage with these permitting decisions, what strategies they have developed to engage with less inclusive government public participation process, and then what challenges remain with implementing environmental justice policies to support the communities that have led the movement. Contribution of the Study By focusing on a rural community challenging planning decisions without political representation, and strategies for inclusive public participation, this study coalesces literature on planning processes and environmental decision-making with environmental justice with community organizing, and critical race theory (CRT). Through the use of an environmental justice framework with city planning and critical race theory, this research makes a unique contribution to understanding the institutional inequalities facing low-income rural communities around public participation in environmental decisions. These challenges, however, are not unique to Kettleman City as many other low-income communities of color must engage with public participation processes that are part of larger proceedings determining permitting, land- use, environmental decisions. Understanding the issues in Kettleman can help uncover institutional challenges faced by similar communities, although the specific context may differ. On a practical level, this study contributes to addressing the practical problem of creating structural political change around environmental justice issues while working within the political system, but facing multiple structural barriers. 16 Methodology & Data Collection Conceptual Framework This dissertation argues that Kettleman City is a case of a rural community’s resilience to participate in the permitting of a hazardous facility that impacts where they live, work, and play, even with few resources and no political representation. This resilience is demonstrated through the continued efforts of opponents of first the landfill incinerator and then the expansion proposal. Although these two landfill proposals occurred more than 15 years apart, Kettleman residents in opposition to their permitting continued to fight to be involved with the permitting process despite challenges with the process, and despite political setbacks with the permitting approvals. The bigger questions of this dissertation deal with structural issues of participation in decision-making, processes, the acknowledgement of different strategies for inclusive processes, and processes that can accommodate minority voices for an equitable outcome. To answer the above stated research questions, this research used an environmental justice framework to analyze the public participation process through a social justice lens, tying together issues of institutional disadvantages of participation. Environmental Justice Framework Environmental justice research has shifted from a direct focus on resource allocation and the siting of toxic waste facilities in low-income communities of color to encompass a broader public health model that includes working conditions, housing, transit, resources, and community empowerment (Walker and Walker, 2012; Bowen, 2014). Despite shifts with environmental justice research, the framework remains in its attempt in “developing tools and strategies to eliminate unfair, unjust, and inequitable conditions and decisions” and “uncover the underlying assumptions that may contribute to and produce differential exposure and unequal protection” (Bullard and Johnson, 2000, pg. 559). This framework, therefore, works towards advancing environmental justice by seeking out underlying causes that produce and reproduce the pattern for low-income communities of color to host disproportionate burden of environmental and health hazards. By adopting this framework this research seeks to move beyond demonstrating the disparate impact on a community hosting a hazardous landfill, but determine the political processes that support the permitting of a hazardous facility in a community that has been actively involved with opposing the facility for 25 years. Along with using an environmental justice framework, this research draws on theories of institutional racism and critical race theory. Dismantling racism requires seeing where it exists beyond the individual level or individual intent. Although within city planning institutional racism often manifests as spatially as racial segregation (Massey and Denton, 1993), specifically considering institutional racism allows for seeing how various forms of racism contribute to spatialized disadvantages that can lead to disparate environmental impacts on communities of color (Pulido, 2000). Here institutional racism is defined as racial discrimination within institutions, processes, practices that does not require individual intent to re-produce disadvantages, inequitable opportunities, or discrimination based on race (Aspen Institute on Community Change and Applied Research Center at UC Berkeley, 2004). 17 Critical race theory (CRT) assists with exposing underlying practices and processes that continue to marginalize communities of color in political processes by recognizing how political, social, and economic systems are embedded in institutions and power structures (Dickinson, 2012). CRT also identifies the myth of a meritocracy or equal access, which ignores systematic inequalities produced from racial hierarchies. The power of inequality is its ability to appear as if it does not exist allowing inequalities to remain unchecked within institutions and structures because they are embedded. Whereas CRT views the law not as neutral, but a tool for upholding inequality, city planning and policies have been used as tools for reinforcing inequality. Critical race theory can be helpful for understanding and explaining why racial inequalities exist within the public participation process by showing how inequality became built into the process (Calmore, 1991; powell, 1997; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012). This research used the environmental justice framework with ideas of institutional racism and CRT to examine the underlying structures that continue to present challenges to Kettleman residents opposing permitting decisions of hazardous facility, despite their increased efforts, as well as the proliferation of environmental justice studies, practices, and polices created to support communities of color from hosting a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards. Research Design To answer the research question of how can rural communities with few resources already burdened by negative environmental and health impacts, utilize community-organizing strategies to engage with formal, less inclusive public participation processes on hazardous permitting decisions, this research used a case study approach incorporating the environmental justice framework with critical race theory to analyze the process and history of permitting decisions with the Kettleman Hills Facility. The residents of Kettleman City are experts in the issues surrounding the landfill and their knowledge and experiences with the permit process is different from an outsiders or a government official’s perspective. While government officials and Waste Management’s opinions are captured in this dissertation, this work focused on the resident’s experiences with the permitting process, the challenges and strategies for overcoming these challenges, and the institutional barriers to achieving environmental justice. Rationale for case study approach A case study approach is appropriate for research designs attempting to answer explanatory questions of how or why, it is focused on processes overtime, and the research is based around contemporary events that cannot be controlled (Yin, 2008). This study satisfies both of these requirements for a case study approach because it is focused on the processes surrounding the proposed landfill expansion, which involved both past and present events around issues of environmental justice that the researcher cannot influence. This dissertation used a single-case study design focused on the public participation process and events in Kettleman City because although the residents’ situation is not unique, their ability to successfully challenge the largest waste disposal corporation in the United States, and win, is. Yin (2008) stated the single case study design is appropriate when a specific case is so rare it warrants documentation and analysis. Researchers of both environmental justice and public health issues have labeled 18 Kettleman City a critical case in the environmental justice movement because the inhabitants are exposed to the spectrum of environmental and health issues (Cole and Foster, 200; Kumeh, 2010). Case Selection While the focus is on Kettleman City, the “cases” are the permitting decisions of the Kettleman Hills Facility. Within these decisions or permit approvals were multiple stakeholders and actors including: Kettleman City residents in opposition and support of the permits, other community organizers and activists working with opponents, the Department of Toxic and Substance Control (DTSC), the Kings County Community Development Agency (formerly the Kings County Planning Commission), the Kings County Board of Supervisors, the Local Assessment Committees formed in 1988 and 2005, and Waste Management employees. The permitting decisions were selected as they represent key moments where public participation processes were, or should have been utilized for public inclusion in the decision process. Each of these decisions similarly involved a complex series of interactions between Kettleman City residents, community groups, the private corporation Waste Management, and government agencies at county and state levels. Within the case study of Kettleman City, the first case was considered to be the incinerator decision that occurred between 1988 and 1993, and the second case of the expansion approval occurring between 2005 and 2014. Although the second case of the expansion permit was first decided in 2009 when the Board of Supervisors upheld the Kings County Community Development Agency’s permit approval, the case extended to 2014 when DTSC approved their permit for the facility. Data Sources & Collection This study relies on planning and legal documents, participant observations at public meetings in 2013 and 2014, archival research, and in-depth interviews with 22 residents, organizers, and advocates, as well as government officials involved with the public meetings in 1990 and 2009. Planning documents were obtained through Internet searchers or when unavailable there, through information request with the Kings County Community Development Agency (formerly the Kings County Planning Agency). Greenaction for Health and the Environment, a nonprofit environmental justice organization based in San Francisco made available their research archives, as they were a key organization involved with both the incinerator and expansion proposals. Greenaction was also instrumental with the introduction to other nonprofit justice and legal groups working with Kettleman City, as well as Kettleman City residents. After initial introductions were made with Kettleman City residents involved with the incinerator and expansion projects, snowball sampling was used to contact additional Kettleman residents. Other interviewees were identified in newspapers or public documents and were contacted by email, phone, or in-person at their home address. While the majority of those interviewed were Kettleman residents or community organizers and activists, government officials and Waste Management employees were also contacted for interviews (Table 5). 19 Government officials were selected if they were likely to have been involved with any of the public participation meetings or the decision to approve the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) in either 1991 or 2009. In total, six interviews were conducted with government employees of both state and local Kings County government agencies. Additionally, Waste Management employees were selected for interviews based on their current role at the Kettleman Hills Facility or their experiences with the public participation meetings as identified through meeting minutes, newspapers, or other public documents. Although multiple attempts were made by email and phone to contact Kettleman Hills Facility employees for interviews, none were responsive to the request. All interviewees were semi-structured, lasted about an hour, and were recorded with the interviewees verbal consent. They were conducted between 2014 and 2015, and were mostly in- person, with three held over the phone. Recorded interviews were then transcribed, coded for themes using excel, and analyzed. Table 5: Industry Categorization of Interviewees Industry Category Percent of Interviews Completed Kettleman City Residents and Organizers 59% Other Community Activists 14% Government Officials 27% Waste Management Employees 0% Total 100% In addition to interviews and archival research and review of documents, public observations were conducted at meetings with community coalitions, state agency meetings, and community protests. These observations were documented through hand-written notes on general conversations, but not recorded for quotes or in-depth analysis. These observations were made between 2014 and 2015 and concerned the state agencies’ permit approval of the Kettleman Hills Facility expansion. Organization of Chapters This dissertation is about a rural, unincorporated community that has attempted to engage with the public participation process to permit a hazardous facility in their community. This research includes the challenges those opposing the permits have experienced as well as their strategies for overcoming these challenges, and it assesses the ability of state environmental justice polices to support these community efforts in achieving environmental justice. The case of Kettleman City shows that increasing community capacity to engage in public participation is not enough for a community’s success opposing a project that will knowingly increase air 20 pollution. Here public participation, although viewed as (and is) an important element in the permitting process, is limited in its ability to include opponents in a meaningful way due to institutional barriers within CEQA and state environmental justice policies. These institutional barriers include limitations with physical access to meetings, language translation services and translations of planning documents, as well as additional barriers of police intimidation at public meetings. While some of these barriers to meaningful participation represent the spatial challenges of living in a rural area, such as physical access to meetings, others represent the institutional racism and discrimination that are the crux of environmental justice. Here institutional racism is seen within the public participation process in multiple ways. First, the lack of translations of documents or limited services at meetings reflects the white privilege of English speakers to expect participants including those from a community that is 42% foreign born (Table 1), to be fluent in English to be meaningfully involved in the permitting process. Second, the lack of focus of race or the disparate impact of permitting a hazardous facility in a community that is 99% Hispanic (Table 1) already facing cumulative exposures from multiple environmental hazards demonstrates how although there may not be intentional racism present, the process is able to reproduce a structure that disproportionately impacts a largely minority community. In these two separate, but simultaneously connected ways, residents of Kettleman City are systematically discriminated against without any one individual or group acting in an intentionally discriminatory manner. Institutional racism operates in a subversive way, which is why the environmental justice framework is needed to examine the structures, systems, and processes that reproduce the discrimination that leads to the disproportionate environment burdens. Chapter two begins with existing literature on the history of the environmental justice movement, the strengths and limitations of the movement’s strategies, and the framing for achieving environmental justice. Chapter three shows the challenges with CEQA’s public participation process. CEQA, as California’s main environmental protection law is the cornerstone for environmental planning, but it presents limitations for utilizing public participation as a strategy or path to achieving environmental justice. This chapter used evidence of the challenges facing Kettleman City residents opposing the permit approvals to show the limitations of CEQA for meaningfully involving people within the public participation processes. Chapter four demonstrates the community’s resilience to the challenges with public participation through continued efforts to engage with the process by utilizing resources available, creating new ones, and adapting to social and political changes. Here, interviews with residents, organizers, and activists revealed the community-based strategies used and what they have been able to accomplish. While these strategies have been effective tools for opponents of the project to be more meaningfully included in the permitting process, not every barrier could be met, and new challenges evolved. Community-based strategies that were most effective targeted the procedural equity issues and built social support through coalitions. Although more strategies were used in 2009 than 1991, opponents were successful in their mission of stopping the project in 1991 and not 2009. Despite targeting procedural issues and feeling more meaningfully included in the process in 2009 than 1991, opposing the landfill expansion project was not successful. 21 Chapter five shows that although there is an increased awareness of environmental justice at the state and federal level, institutional barriers within the state institutions create limitations to achieving environmental justice. These barriers are limitations within public participation procedures for achieving environmental justice and concerns with challenging state approved permitting decisions, but despite these challenges, community groups have been successful in supporting legislation for addressing these issues. State public participation procedures are limited due to institutional racism within the process, and state agencies present barriers to challenging this issue, as well as others, due to their colorblind environmental justice language. Additionally, state institutions have created barriers for communities to achieve environmental justice with their reliance on health studies with low statistical power, the culture within the institution, and their lack of permitting criteria. These limitations go beyond the ability to be meaningfully involved in the permitting process showing the limitations of health and environmental reports to support community concerns, and the limitations for challenging county or state permitting decisions with Title VI, two tools commonly used by communities for environmental justice. Considering the challenges communities face using these tools reveals why environmental racism persists, and helps explain why even with increased knowledge of environmental and health concerns, engaged opponents of a project are failing to stop projects that state and county government acknowledge will increase pollution in an already overburdened community. Finally, chapter six concludes by posing solutions to these continued challenges for government agencies to better support environmental justice communities, and summarizes what works for community strategies moving toward more meaningful involvement in permitting hazardous facilities. This chapter focuses on addressing institutional racism in the permitting process, as well as environment decisions. Here the recommendations are for creating policies that consider equity in the process, viewing the environment justice movement through the environmental racism frame, and seeing place as a civil rights issue to help planners and government agencies support communities seeking environmental justice. Chapter 1 References Aspen Institute on Community Change and Applied Research Center at UC Berkeley. (2004). Structural Racism. The Race and Public Policy Conference. Retrieved from http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism Associated Press. (1993, September 8). Firm Withdraws Its Plan for Toxic Waste Incinerator. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-08/news/mn-32887_1_toxic- waste Bowen, W. (2014). An Analytical Review of Environmental Justice Research: What Do We Really Know? Environmental Management, 29(1), 3–15. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-0037-8 Bullard, R. D. (1993). Environmental Racism and Invisible Communities. West Virginia Law Review, 96, 1037. _____. (1994). Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decisionmaking. Environment, 36(4). _____. (2008). Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Westview Press. 22 Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmentalism and public policy: Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 555–578. Bullard, R. (Ed.) and Lewis, J. (1996). Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1), 103–124. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124 CBDMP. (2009). Birth Defects in Kettleman City. California Birth Defects Monitoring Program (CBDMP). California Department of Public Health. Retrieved: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CBDMP/Documents/MO-CBDMP-KettlemanCityReport _____. (2011). Birth Defects in Kettleman City and Surrounding Areas, 2009-2011 Update. California Birth Defects Monitoring Program (CBDMP) Retrieved: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CBDMP/Documents/MO-CBDMP-BirthDefectinKC- English-2009-11 California Environmental Justice Network (October 2013). On the Toxic Trail Demonstration at Cal/EPA. Retrieved: https://ccejn.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/on-the-toxic-trail-demonstration- at-calepa/ CalEPA. (2004). CalEPA Environmental Justice Action Plan. CalEPA and CDPH. (2010). Investigation of Birth Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, CA. Final Draft (December) Retrieved http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Documents/KettlemanCityReportNovv1English Cal Health & Saf §25173.5(a). California Health and Safety Code §25173.5(a) (1997) Calmore, J. (1991). Critical Race Theory, Archie Shepp, and Fire Music. Southern California Law Review, 65. Cerrell Associates. (1984). Political Difficulties Facing Waste-to-Energy Conversion Plant Siting. Los Angeles, CA. CEQA Handbook (2016). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. Public Resources Code 21000-21189 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Divison 6, Sections 15000-16387. California Natural Resources Agency. Retrieved from http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines CH2MHILL (2008). Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Executive Summary. B-18/B- 20 Hazardous Waste Disposal Project Kettleman Hills Facility Chemical Waste Management, Inc. State Clearinghouse No. 2005041064. Prepared for the Kings County Planning Agency, Hanford, CA (March). Retrieved: http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/facility- expansion/project-documents/environmental-impact-report-executive-summary-march-2008 Chevron. (2016, July). United States. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from https://www.chevron.com/worldwide/united-states Cole, L. W. (1994). Struggle of Kettleman City: Lessons for the Movement, The. Md. J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 5, 67. _____. (1999). Theory and Reality of Community-Based Environmental Decisionmaking: The Failure of California’s Tanner Act and Its Implications for Environmental Justice, The. Ecology LQ, 25, 733. Cole, L. W., & Foster, S. R. (2001). From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement (First Edition). New York: NYU Press. 23 County of Kings, Final Budget. (2015-2016). Final Budget. Volume I Program Budgets, Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=9681 County of Kings General Plan Update 2035 (2010). Introduction. 2035 Kings County General Plan. Community Development Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3108 Corwin, M. (1991, February 24). Unusual Allies Fight Waste Incinerator: Hazards: Grower and farm workers, fearing pollution and health problems, oppose plan to put state’s first such commercial plant in Kings County. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02- 24/news/mn-2788_1_chemical-waste Cutter, S. L. (2012). Hazards Vulnerability and Environmental Justice. Routledge. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. NYU Press. Dickinson, E. (2012). Addressing Environmental Racism Through Storytelling: Toward an Environmental Justice Narrative Framework. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5(1), 57–74. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01119.x DTSC Addendum and Initial Study. (2013) Environmental Checklist to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Existing B-18 Class I/Class II Landfill Expansion Project. Kettleman Hills Facility, Chemical Waste Management, INC. (May 21). Retrieved: https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman_AddendumAndInitialStud yEnvironmentalChecklist_EIR_0513 DTSC Community Flyer (May 2014). DTSC Approves Expansion of Kettleman Hills Facility. Department of Toxics Substance Control. Retrieved: https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/KettlemanCommunityflyerEnglish512 DTSC CWM Facility Compliance History. (2013) CWM Kettleman Hills Facility RCRA/TSCA Inspections 1983-Present. Retrieved from http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman_ComplianceHistory_0713.p df DTSC Envirostor (2016). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Retrieved http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_t ype=CSITES%2COPEN%2CFUDS%2CCLOSE&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&reporttitl e=HAZARDOUS%20WASTE%20AND%20SUBSTANCES%20SITE%20LIST# DTSC Expansion Decision (2013). Community Notice for DTSC’s Draft Decision to Approve the Proposed Expansion of the Landfill at the Kettleman Hills Facility. Department of Toxics Substance Control (July). Retrieved: https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman_FS_ExpansionDecision_0 713 DTSC Fact Sheet. (October 2013) Approval of Class 3 Permit Modification Request, Chemical Waste Management Inc., Kettleman Hills Facility, 35251 Old Skyline Road, Kettleman City, King County, CA 93239, Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number CAT000646117. Retrieved: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/ChemWaste_Kettleman_FS_Updated- October2013_Eng El Pueblo Para el Aire y Agua Limpio v. County of Kings, (Cal. December, 30 1991.) No. C-91- 2083-SBA 24 EDF. (1985). Nowhere to Go: The Universal Failure of Class I Hazardous Waste Dump Sites in California. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Toxics Assessment Group. Environmental Law Reporter (1992). El Pueblo Para el Aire y Limpio v. County of Kings. No. 366045 (Cal. Super. Ct. December 30, 1991) 22 ELR 20357. Retrieved from: https://elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/22.20357.htm EMCON Assoc. (1986). Report to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. EPA, Region 9 Strategic Plan 2011-2014. Geographic Area of Focus: San Joaquin Valley. Retrieved from: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/strategicplan/sanjoaquin.html Foster, S. (1998). Justice from the ground up: Distributive inequities, grassroots resistance, and the transformative politics of the environmental justice movement. California Law Review, 775– 841. GAO. (1983). Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills And Their Correlation With Racial And Economic Status Of Surrounding Communities (No. GAO/RCED-83-168). United States General Accounting Office. Gottlieb, R. (2002). Environmentalism Unbound: Exploring New Pathways for Change. Grigsby, J. E. (1994). In Planning There Is No Such Thing as a “Race Neutral” Policy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 240–241. Grossi, M. (2014, October 14). State rejects appeal over Kettleman Hills expansion. The Fresno Bee. Fresno, CA. Retrieved from http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/earth- log/article19526094.html Hanford Sentinel Forum. (2008, December 3). Sentinel Analysis: How can toxic waste find a home in Kings County? Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/sentinel-analysis-how-can-toxic-waste-find-a-home- in/article_2c3cb4ee-975e-58b4-a522-15b9381da10a.html Johnson, H., & Hayes, J. (2004, November). The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and Its Implications. Public Policy Institute of California. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and San Joaquin Valley Place Matters Team. (2012). Place Matters for health in the San Joaquin Valley. Ensuring Opportunities for Good Health for All, A Report on Health Inequities in the San Joaquin Valley. Retrieved: https://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/cvhpi/documents/cvhpi-jointcenter-sanjoaquin Kings County Board of Supervisors. 7 December 2009. Meeting Minutes. _____. 22 December 2009. Meeting Minutes Kings County Department of Public Health (2016). RFP 2016-25 Kettleman City Community Health Survey. Retrieved: http://www.countyofkings.com/Home/Components/RFP/RFP/97/697 Kings County Planning Commission. Meeting. 5 October 2009. Meeting Minutes. Greenaction for Health and the Environment Archives, San Francisco, CA. _____. Meeting. 19 October 2009. Meeting Minutes. Greenaction for Health and the Environment Archives, San Francisco, CA. Kumeh, T. (2007, November). Pass it on: Toxic waste moved from area to area. San Mateo County Times. San Mateo, California. _____. (2010). Kettleman City’s Toxic Web. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2010/07/kettleman-city-toxic LAC Final Recommendation. (2009, April 16). Final Report and Recommendation Kings County Local Assessment Committee For the Proposed Chemical Waste Management, INC. Kettleman Hills Facility Hazardous Waste Facility Expansion Project. Kings County Local Assessment 25 Committee. Retrieved from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/pdfs/LAC%20final%20report LAC Meeting Minutes (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3490. 17 April. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3408. 8 May _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3404. 22 May. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3406. 29 May. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3410. 10 July. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3412. 14 August. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3414. 11 September. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3394. 20 October. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3400. 13 November. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3402. 11 December. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3446. December 20. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3368. 8 January. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3488. 29 January. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3370. 5 February. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3372. 26 February. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3476. 5 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3478. 12 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3374. 19 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3362. 9 April. Leslie, J. (2010, August). What’s Killing the Babies of Kettleman City? Retrieved June 15, 2016, from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2010/07/kettleman-city-toxic-birth-defect- cluster Mares-Alatorre, M. (2008, November 14). Local Guest Commentary: Kettleman City deal is unacceptable. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from 26 http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/local-guest-commentary-kettleman-city-deal-is- unacceptable/article_e7af72c9-c546-5bee-bb2f-220af8ba8122.html Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press. Miller, E. (1992, March). Final Report: Waste Management. Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. Ministries, W., Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2007). Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987-2007. McDermott, C. J. (1993). Balancing the scales of environmental justice. Fordham Urb. LJ, 21, 689. Morello-Frosch, R., & Lopez, R. (2006). The riskscape and the color line: Examining the role of segregation in environmental health disparities. Environmental Research, 102(2), 181–196. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2006.05.007 NEJAC. (2013). Model Guidelines for Public Participation. An Update to the 1996 NEJAC Model Plan for Public Participation. US EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/recommendations-model-guide- pp-2013 Nidever, S. (2006, April 5). No money for trash, Kettleman City says. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/front/no-money-for-trash-kettleman-city- says/article_e12905d2-a3e9-5411-adf6-a00469d34da7.html _____. (2010, June 30). Kettleman landfill operator feeling the heat. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kettleman-landfill-operator- feeling-the-heat/article_06da1e3c-8473-11df-a0a5-001cc4c002e0.html _____. (2012, October 31). Canadian oil company to drill more wells near Kettleman City. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/canadian- oil-company-to-drill-more-wells-near-kettleman-city/article_bbd367fe-2399-11e2-a868- 0019bb2963f4.html _____. (2013, March 28). Kettleman landfill slapped with $300K fine. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. _____. (2014, April 9). Kettleman City water rates likely to increase. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kettleman-city-water-rates- likely-to-increase/article_16597ce8-bf95-11e3-bd04-0019bb2963f4.html OEHHA. (2014). California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen 2.0). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and CalEPA. Retrieved from http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-version-20 Pastor, M., Sadd, J., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1111/0735- 2166.00072 powell, j. (1997). Racing of American Society: Race Functioning as a Verb before Signifying as a Noun, The. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 15, 99. Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (2004). The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and Its Implications. PPIC electronic report: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1104HJR Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), 12–40. http://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00182 Roberts, R. M. (2008). Kings County. Arcadia Publishing. 27 Sahagun, L. (2009, December 8). Kettleman City asks: Why so many birth defects? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/08/local/la-me-kettleman-city8- 2009dec08 _____. (2014, May 21). Waste Facility Allowed to Expand, Despite Community’s Health Concerns. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Sen. Bill 115, 1998-1999. Reg. Sess. (Cal. 1999). Retrieved from ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99- 00/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_115_bill_19991010_chaptered.html Southern Kern Sol. (2014, January 11). Central Valley Residents Grapple with Proposed Fracking Regulations – South Kern Sol. Retrieved from http://www.southkernsol.org/2014/01/11/central- valley-residents-grapple-with-proposed-fracking-regulations/ The Planning Center, (2012). San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts 2010 to 2050. Prepared for the Fresno Council of Governments on behalf of the eight San Joaquin Valley regional planning organizations. Retrieved from: http://www.valleyblueprint.org/files/San%20Joaquin%20Valley%20Demographic%20Forecasts %20-%20Final%2027%20Mar%202012_0 UCC. (1987). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Public Data Access. _____. (2007). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Commission for Racial Justice. Walker, G., & Walker, S. L. in L. G. (2012). Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics. Routledge. Ward, M. (1987, July 16). State Board Denies Using Siting Report: Study Identifies Least Likely Incinerator Foes. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07- 16/news/cb-4317_1_waste-incineration-plant Waste Management Kettleman Hills Facility Website. (2016) Three Decades of Community Support. Retrieved from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/community/index.jsp Wozniacka, G. (2010, August 25). Chemical Waste Management’s Kettleman City Landfill, Largest Toxic Dump In The West, Fined $1 Million By EPA. HuffPost San Francisco. San Francisco, CA. Yamashita, E. (2007, December 13). Kettleman City landfill project delayed. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/kettleman-city-landfill- project-delayed/article_57e50eca-86b9-51a0-8279-c0d754898290.html _____. (2008, April 17). Landfill project committee draws criticism. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/landfill-project-committee-draws- criticism/article_31ad00db-e4b7-5dc4-af07-854e8b145933.html _____. (2009, March 10). Avenal residents request reconsideration from supervisors. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/avenal-residents- request-reconsideration-from-supervisors/article_d2b96c60-789b-5f98-992e-ae24c0b3872c.html _____. (2009, October 6). Anger erupts at landfill meeting. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th edition). Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. Yuen, E., Bunin, L. J., & Stroshane, T. (1997). Multicultural ecology: An interview with Carl Anthony. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 8(3), 41–62. 28 Chapter 2. History of a Movement: The strengths and limitations of an environmental justice framework and strategies Public Health, City Planning & Place Place matters to health through pathways that can limit or provide opportunities of access and resources, or through exposure to unsafe or unhealthy environments (Hancock, 1996; Macintyre et al, 2002; Morland et al, 2002; Frank et al, 2006; Vlahov et al, 2007; Braveman and Gruskin, 2003). Access is seen with the provision of resources such as high performing schools, affordable and healthy food options, adequate and safe housing, reliable public transportation, or open spaces. Unsafe or unhealthy environments include exposure to crime or violence, poor air, land, or water quality, work places with high accident or illness rates, or living in an area with high vulnerability to climate change. These social determinants of health are correlated with health outcomes and disparities and they can accumulate over a lifetime. For example, place is correlated with life expectancy where higher income neighborhoods have higher life expectancies (Babones, 2008; Kramer and Hogue, 2009), but income alone cannot explain these differences or disparities (Cummins et al, 2007). Individually no one variable or social determinant of health can explain health disparities, but the accumulation or aggregation of determinants in a place can help explain the variation in health outcomes. In this way place is a strong predictor of health, and since people are not randomly distributed, planning practices and policies plays a key role in shaping health outcomes (Braveman and Gruskin, 2003; Marmot et al, 2008). The relationship between city planning and health can be traced to the start of both of these fields. While originally public health and planning shared the same goals (Krieger, 2000; Wilson and Mabhala, 2008), Corburn (2009) showed how the two disciplines were divided. Public health has been framed as a series of social and urban interventions aimed at addressing social problems thought to cause, perpetuate, or aggravate diseases. These interventions have relied on the way health has been defined and have changed as the definition of health, the causes of ill health, and the way health has been studied has changed. As the professions of public health and planning separated so did the focus of the two fields. Although recently there has been a reemergence of research connecting the two fields within the professions, researchers, heath advocates and communities dealing environmental hazards have been demanding the government consider the health impacts of planning and planning projects to human health (Corburn, 2009). Through organizing and research, communities of color have brought attention to the health hazards they face on a daily basis. These health hazards include the exposure to poor air, water, and land quality or proximity to toxic sites, but also the unequal protection afforded to through zoning, the siting or permitting of toxic sites, and the regulation or enforcement of environmental laws (Bullard, 1993; Brulle and Pellow, 2006). 29 Unequal Treatment Zoning was introduced as a city-planning tool for creating healthier places by separating residential and industrial land uses. The Supreme Court case, Amber Realty Co v. Village of Euclid established zoning under the police powers because of its potential to protect human health (Wilson et al, 2008). While zoning was used to prevent industries from locating near residential areas, it also became a tool for excluding unwanted industries and unwanted people, such as lower income, immigrants, and racial minority groups. This physical exclusion was seen with redlining practices or racially restrictive covenants that prohibited access to suburban homes for people of color. Suburban development and homes located outside of city centers were filled with white families with the means and access for home ownership, which was heavily subsidized through FHA mortgages, while people of color remained within cities that were suffering from financial disinvestment of infrastructure and jobs. This unequal treatment that provided access to home ownership, and subsequently infrastructure investment, education, and higher waged jobs was based on racial discrimination and contributed to the spatial concentration of white suburbs and people of color within inner cities (Kmiec, 1986; Silver, 1997; Massey and Denton, 1993; Massey and Rothwell, 2009). This concentration of people of color within cities was associated with lower land value, and the return of residential areas being located near industrial land uses (Armstrong, 1997; Gotham, 2000). In addition to contributing to racial segregation, zoning has contributed to the concentration of low-income communities of color near toxic or unwanted land uses (Hurley, 1995; Pastor et al, 2005). Land zoned for industrial use is cheaper than land for commercial or residential development, and poses higher environmental burdens including land, air, and water pollution to surrounding areas in the form of toxic releases, increased diesel emissions, water contamination, long term impacts to soil. One factor in selecting locations for industrial zoning and facilities is the low cost of the land, but cheaper land coupled with these industries requiring low skilled workers has meant the concentration of low-income communities around these facilities (Pendall, 2000; Morello-Frosch et al, 2001) As Maantay (2002) has pointed out, zoning and land use policies are the root causes of environmental hazards and burdens contributing to environmental injustices (Manntay, 2002). While researchers debate which is likely to come first, the low income community or the polluting industry, the end result is people with the fewest resources to oppose the pollution, enforce the environmental regulations, have access to health care and other health preventative resources are the ones living in these highly polluted areas (Pastor et al, 2001; Mohai and Saha, 2015). Researchers have demonstrated the propensity for siting and permitting toxic facilities within low-income communities of color (UCC, 1987; GAO, 1987; Bullard, 1993b; 1993c). In 1987 the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice showed toxic facilities were located in zip codes with twice the percentage of minorities than those with none, and the percentage of minorities in these zip codes with toxic facilities has increased (UCC, 2007). Since the UCCs seminal study, researchers have established the likelihood for minorities to be living near waste facilities (Godsil, 1991; Pastor et al, 2001; Morello-Frosch, 2006). Despite this evidence for the likelihood of toxic facilities or pollution to be located in minority neighborhoods or communities of color, researchers using spatial models have attempted to show there is no correlation between location and race (Anderton, et al 1994). These researchers have argued the correlation is with income, and that it is low-income communities that are more likely to host 30 toxic facilities, not communities of color. Pastor et al (2001), however, refuted this work by showing that research only considers the distribution of hazards at any one time, but when income is controlled for over time, the most significant factor in where sites are located is race (Pastor et al, 2001). Debate: Income or race as predictor of site selection? While there is now little debate on whether if these facilities are more likely to be located within communities of color than white communities, there is debate among researchers on why these sites are selected (Been, 1992; Anderton et al, 1994; Cutter, 1995; Downey, 1998; Bullard and Johnson, 2000). The explanations presented focus on market or economic issues (Andel and Burton, 1998; Anderton et al, 2000), discrimination or racism within the siting selection (Bullard and Lewis, 1996; Heiman, 1996), or the ability to politically resist facilities (Hamilton, 1995; Foster, 1998). Within the market based reasoning are arguments that the land is cheaper or zoned for industrial near low-income community, or that these communities desire the development for employment opportunities (Been, 1992; Bonds 2013). The argument of low-income communities desiring this type of development negates the historical process that led to the concentrations of low income, low skilled workers and low-income communities of color. It cannot explain the factors leading to these spatial concentrations, only that those living near these facilities desire economic development. It is important to understand the process not only to the siting of a facility, but the creation of a place because it is within the policies and practices that concentrate people, and not randomly, that allows for the understanding of how these policies were used to discriminate against low income communities of color (Pulido, 2000). Further, Pastor (2003) used a case study of Los Angeles that disputes the idea this type of development leads to more employment opportunities. Pastor’s research found that as pollution and the cancer risk associated with air pollution increased, the availability of employment opportunities decreased. Not only is it untrue that development is always good for the economy, development that leads to environmental degradation or increased health risks has a negative economic effect on the surrounding neighborhood (Pastor, 2003). The other side to the argument that development is an economic benefit to low income communities is the idea they are selected because of their low social capital (Hamilton, 1995). Here social capital is defined as political power, social networks, and level of organization as the ability to resist unwanted developments (Pastor, 2003). While political power is closely associated with socioeconomic factors such as income and education attainment, low-income communities can increase political power through networks and organizing (Morello-Frosch et al, 2002; Saegert et al, 2002). Pastor (2003) highlighted the role of social capital, defined as the “informal networks and formal organizations that enable communities to work together for common goals” (Pastor, 2003, pp. 78), for achieving environmental justice. Pastor further defined social capital as two types, bonding as capital that brings together the community and bridging as the capital connecting different communities. While strengthening both of these forms of social capital can support the community’s ability to resist or challenge unwanted developments, the lack of social capital is not the only reason for site selection of environmental hazards (Pastor, 2003). 31 Political Economy & Historical Processes with Site Selection Despite which came first-the community or the environmental hazard- low-income communities of color surround toxic facilities. Now older research examined the debate on which is a better predictor for toxic facilities-income or race- (Freeman, 1974; Asch and Senaca, 1978) with the results varying based on the geographic scale or the socioeconomic variables used. The research finding income was a stronger predictor of toxic site selection often negated the intersection of income, race, and place (Pulido, 2000). Environmental justice research conducted in the 1990s took a more nuanced approach to examining the demographics of site selection. Using Detroit, Michigan, in 1992 Mohai and Bryant (1992) examined the relationship between race and income in the distribution of 14 commercial hazardous waste facilities in area. Here Mohai and Bryant collected data from facility sites and surveys administered to a socially stratified random sample at predetermined distances from the sites finding an overrepresentation of poverty closer to sites, and using multiple regression analysis they showed race accounted for location of sites over income. While this research determined race was a stronger predictor of facility siting than income, it also showed the dynamics of race, income and place (Mohai and Bryant, 2000). About 10 years before this research, however, the General Account Office’s (1983) published a report showing poor, rural, African-American communities were being targeted for toxic waste disposal (GAO, 1983), a different story than the income versus race debate in siting. Despite evidence that communities of color have been discriminated against in permitting and siting (UCC, 1987; Pulido et al, 1996; Szasz and Meuser, 1997), some researchers have attempted to dispute the intentional use of racism in toxic site selection (Been, 1992). This research, however, that is focused around intentional or individual racism is misguided as environmental racism encompasses elements of institutional or structural racism and not merely individual led actions (Pulido, 2000). The 1987 UCC study coined the term “environmental racism” as the intentional placement of pollution in communities of color (UCC, 1987), but this phrasing of intentional became a challenge within environmental justice research. Intentional discrimination is not only difficult to prove (Kiniyalocts, 2000), it also omits a more nuanced and historical explanation involving the process of site selection, and why communities of color are more likely to be located in areas with lower land values than white communities (Pulido et al, 1996). In viewing institutional racism from the framework of white privilege, Pulido (2000) showed how this form of racism plays out with the siting of environmental hazards by flipping the question from why are toxic facilities located within communities of color, she showed how white communities have been able to resist these hazardous developments. Here Pulido used white privilege defined as “a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism” (Pulido, 2000, pp. 536) to show how people who identify as white use this privilege to distance themselves from racial discrimination they may not be involved with in an intentional or obvious way, but that they nonetheless continue to benefit from. Using a case study of Los Angeles, Pulido traced a history of institutional racism culminating in racial segregation and environmental racism. This complex history involved factors of suburbanized housing discrimination and economic development that benefited the white community along with zoning and industry associated with low or decreased land values concentrated low income communities of color near pollution and environmental hazards. This history then explains the 32 process of how communities of color become concentrated near toxic facilities and more likely to be exposed to pollution than white communities, without anyone ever having to make an intentional decision to discriminate based on race (Pulido, 2000). In a similar vein, Brulle and Pellow (2005) argued for seeing the connection between planning and environmental racism beyond land use and siting of toxic facilities. Their research showed the connections between access to healthily environments, distribution of healthy environments by race, class, and power, and the connection to the affordability of housing and exposure to pollutants. Here Brulle and Pellow showed that ultimately the attention shouldn’t be placed on why are these toxic releasing facilities located in communities of color, but rather on why there are so many communities of color surrounding these facilities. The first statement of the facility location leads to research showing the disparate impact of siting, and reasons for this location selection, but the argument can always be made it was chosen for economic reasons. If the statement flips to look at why are communities of color surrounding these facilities, then the reasons, although economics also based, are complicated by social and political factors that are more easily shown through housing segregation and discrimination or employment opportunities. Clarifying why these low-income communities of color are disproportionately found near toxic sites highlights the racial discrimination and unequal power dynamics in differing opportunities where people can live, work, play and pray (Brulle and Pellow, 2005). Framing the Debate: environmental racism vs. environmental justice Framing the debate on environmental racism or environmental justice is important for identifying problems and solutions based on the identified causes (Čapek, 1993; Taylor, 2000; Brulle and Pellow, 2006; Holified et al, 2009). While the UCC’s 1987 seminal study was the first to discuss and define environmental racism (UCC, 1987, pp. 3), environmental justice evolved from this definition oriented more toward a justice frame than on racism. This difference in framing would define the problems, solutions, and strategies for the movement (Brulle and Pellow, 2006) and later become important to how government agencies would interpret these issues. The framing of environmental racism and environmental justice differ in their focus on showing the problem or establishing a solution (Bryant, 1995; Pellow, 2004). Framing of the movement is important in stating both problems and solutions, but also for the ability to build the movement and encourage support. The framing of environmental racism was limited in its ability to create broad support and the transformation of the movement from focusing on racism to justice enabled the involvement of more community groups, including the traditional environmental ones (Brulle and Pellow, 2005). Brulle and Pellow (2005) showed the limitations of the environmental racism frame as being too narrow to appeal to a broad base of supporters, and defined the problem in a narrow way, with less ability to unify other organizations. Although the framing was considered to broaden the focus from environmental racism to environmental justice, some researchers argue the frame is now too broad (Anthony, 2005; Neumann et al, 1998, Benford, 2005), while others contend it is too narrow (Faber, 1998), and ultimately its limited because the strategies used under a justice frame cannot create structural 33 change. While the definition of environmental justice takes a broad approach to conceptualizing the environment and what can be included under this frame, the omission of race leaves the causes more abstract and therefore more difficult to target (Pellow and Brulle, 2005). Environmental Justice as a Movement Environmental Justice as a movement began in the 1980s as a reaction to unhealthy environmental practices such as toxic dumping and land use decisions, but the origins of the movement can be traced to other social movements, land use policies, and recognition of hazardous, unhealthy places (Szasz, 1994; Foster, 1998; Cole and Foster, 2001; Bullard, 2015). Many environmental justice scholars see the environmental justice movement as a continuation of the civil rights movement more than the traditional environment one as the issues have focused on labor, housing, health, and the political power required to influence environmental or planning decisions (Anthony, 2005). The work of the environmental justice movement takes a social justice lens to environmental issues that question the structural factors producing place- based inequities that are rooted with institutional or structural racism practices (Bullard, 1993; Pulido, 2000; Pellow and Brulle, 2005). Although the environmental justice movement has roots going back with other social movements, the community discovery of abandoned hazardous waste beneath the working class community of Love Canal, New York in 1982 is often cited as the start of the movement. This struggle of residents of Warren County, North Carolina to oppose the siting of a poly-chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) dump, along with the growing awareness over the dumping of toxic wastes on Native land and other environmental hazards concentrated in communities of color, engendered the emerging link between environmental problems, health disparities, and people of color (Cutter, 1995; Bullard and Lewis, 1996; Cutter et al, 1996; Bullard and Johnson, 2000; McGurty, 2000; 2009). Although the movement for environmental justice includes the word environment, the movement itself has less in common with the traditional environmental movement that was focused on conservation or preservation of “natural” environmental spaces (McGurty, 2009). The traditional environmental movement was founded on the conservation and preservation of land, usually in the form of natural park and reserves or endangered species. This movement of protection of space was successful with the creation of the State and National Parks system, but at the cost of the forced displacement of thousands of Native American tribes who occupied the land (Merchant, 2003). As Pulido and Peña (1998) showed, positionality determines how people relate to nature and the environment, which differs based on race and class. While wealthy white individuals and organizations were pushing for land protection from development, community of color were leading the movements for land rights, toxins, and issues of pesticides. Using the case study of pesticides, Pulido and Peña (1998) showed how the issue was approached from the traditional environmental movement as in Rachel Carson’s 1962 classic work, Silent Spring, and the Chicano/Latino farmworker movement. Carson’s work looked at pesticide reform in the realm of federal and state government action regulating pesticide use from an ecology or ecosystem perspective, but starting in the 1940s the government was regulating pesticide use. This regulation, however, did not consider the impact to laborers or farmworkers, an issue that wasn’t focused on until 1969 when the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) raised the issue and received replies that it was not an issue with workers. Although Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta started organizing farmworkers in the 1960s in the San Joaquin 34 Valley, the farmworkers didn’t win the legal right to unionize until 1970. This unionization enabled them to push for pesticide reform from a labor perspective, and in 1970 they won a contract legally regulating the use of pesticides, benefiting the health of both farm workers and grape buyers. This example of the pesticide reform movement shows how the labor perspective was different from the ecology one, and that they were different in their issue focus, approach, and identification of problems and solutions (Pulido and Peña, 1998). Public Participation as an Environmental Justice Issue & Strategy The framing of the movement identifies issues that are defined by the problems, and in turn this creates solutions and strategies. The strategies will vary based on the problem or cause of environmental injustice. For example, problems of zoning, racism in site selection, or social capital all require different strategies, and different community groups have identified different causes and solutions. Despite these differences in strategies, they are similar to those used in the Civil Rights movement, and they are based on the idea the community most impacted by a development should have a voice in the planning decision (Bullard and Johnson, 2000). As Cole (1992; 1998) and Pastor et al (2001) showed, one environmental justice solution is for communities to utilize public participation for involvement in environmental decisions impacting their communities. Cole (1992) showed public participation benefits both communities and decisions makers by creating a consensus on decisions, and enables the community to be informed on the project (Cole, 1992), but later Cole (1999) argued that within public participation processes the community most impacted tends to be least represented (Cole, 1999). This lack of representation can be a point for planners as their role to engage with community residents (Burby and Strong, 1997), or the need for procedural changes to better include representative community members (Pulido, 1994; Schwartz and Wolfe, 1999). In 1991 The United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice convened the first People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in Washington D.C. (Bullard and Lewis, 1996). At this summit the group created a document outlining 17 principles that define environmental justice, including the right to participate in decision-making, enforcement, planning, and regulation (Bullard, 1999; Shepard, 2002). One of the 17 tenants of environmental justice is that people should have meaningful and equal opportunities to participate in the decisions that impact them (Fung, 2004; Pateman, 1972; Pitkin and Shumer, 1982), but this is not always the case because of existing structural advantages and disadvantages afforded to different groups (Hunold and Young, 1998). Wilson and Briggs (2005) argued for a "geography of opportunity," which addresses the consequences of race and class segregation for the well- being and life prospects of the disadvantaged, while focusing on importance social capital. Wilson and Briggs geography of opportunity demonstrated how where you live impacts your social capital, but it’s social distance that creates neighbors, not geographic proximity (Wilson and Briggs, 2005). Similarly, Wacquant (2000) argued state agencies and public institutions that once supported society are now negative social capital maintaining poor residents in a marginal and dependent position. Inner city disinvestment, welfare retrenchment, shrinking unemployment coverage, and planned shrinkage unravelled the support for poor minority communities, thus weakening their social capital (Wacquant, 2013). While the availability and 35 physical access for public participation may exist, other factors such as social distance may influence participation (Morello-Frosch et al, 2002; Corburn, 2004). Public Participation as an Environmental Justice Issue Public participation is an environmental justice issue because one of the principles of environmental justice is the right to be involved with environmental decisions (Alston, 1991). This right to be involved with environmental decisions stems from the recognition of the failure for government agencies to include communities of color in these decisions, and the negative implications on these communities (Kuhn, 1998; Bullard and Johnson, 2000). Despite the fact that most planning and environmental decisions processes now include mandatory public participation, these processes do not always include communities in a meaningful way. (Davidoff, 1965; Arnstein, 1969; King et al, 1998; Innes and Booher, 2004). As Arnstein (1969) demonstrated with her eight rung ladder of participation, there are varying degrees of public involvement that can range from nonparticipation though the use of manipulation, to citizen control. These ladder rungs showed the spectrum of involvement and were based on power dynamics between those conducting the public participation and those participating. In Arnstein’s model, the highest degree of community involvement is occurring when the community controls the process, and the process should work towards empowering individuals as the issue is the public does not have enough power in the public participation process (Arnstein, 1969). In a similar way, Davidoff (1965) argued there is a need for advocacy planning to increase power with the community (Davidoff, 1965). These ideas of empowering the public in the public participation process are to improve the process through increasing participation, but even when there are increased opportunities or an improved process, the standard public participation tools of hearings, review, and comments cannot meaningfully include the public (Innes and Booher, 2004). Defining Meaningful Public Participation Research around meaningful public participation has included issues of power dynamics and empowerment (Davidoff, 1965; Arnstein, 1969; Laurian, 2008; Fung, 2006; Innes and Booher, 2004; Forester, 2006; Sicottee, 2010), the shaping planning decisions (Laurian, 2008), community representation (Fung, 2006), encouraging participation through opportunities (NEJAC, 2000), participation tools and strategies (Chess and Purcell, 1999), legitimacy (Barnes et al, 2003), and the ability to address conflict and power differences within the participation process (Flyvberg, 1998; Young, 1990 Bryson et al, 2006; Forester, 2006; 2009; Quick and Feldman, 2011). Together these authors have supplied six key components of defining meaningful public participation. These six components include: community representation, information, forms of public participation, access, collaboration, and government responsiveness. Meaningful public participation as a whole is then defined as accessible participation with informed representatives of the community, is collaborative drawing on different forms of participation, and includes responsive government feedback throughout the process. 36 Meaningful public participation is important for community members to be able to fully engage in the process, but also for increasing their ability to obtain procedural justice (Maguire and Lind, 2003). Procedural justice is defined as the process for how environmental decisions are made, but some see that within procedural justice is the idea that if environmental decisions are made through a fair process, then they are just regardless of the outcome (Turner and Wu, 2002). This notion of justice centers on the assumption that people are able to participate with environmental and planning decisions, and their participation is effective or meaningful. Community capacity and empowerment then become crucial to involvement with environmental decisions, as power distribution among communities differs based on income, race, and place. Subsequently, researchers analyzed the concept of community empowerment and access to resources necessary to fully participate in the decision process (Heiman, 1996), with procedural justice concerns including translators at public hearings or providing translations of documents (Foster, 1998). From this research comes the idea that collaborative approaches that build community capacity by allowing more authentic dialog of informed individuals are effective by increasing personal and professional networks and relationships (Innes and Booher, 2004). These collaborative models of participation should then result in greater procedural justice, which are more likely to lead to greater satisfaction among participants (Lawrence et al, 1997) but Foster argued these approaches must be coupled with distributional equity issues (Foster, 1998). Complementing procedural justice is distributional justice, which is the fair distribution of resources and burdens (Roemer, 1998). While procedural justice focuses on the fair process in decision-making, distributional justice is most concerned with a fair outcome. These outcomes are also nuanced because a fair outcome could mean every place receiving an equal number of resources and burdens, but within an equity based distribution some places would receive more or less (Turner and Wu, 2002). The idea behind the equity model is that some places or communities have a greater vulnerability due to social factors like low-income, language, or physical or social access to other resources such as health care, healthy food, adequate and safe housing or high performing schools. These factors make people vulnerable or more susceptible to poor health outcomes, and increasing pollution in these areas would then negatively contribute to their health that would not have the same impact in a different place with more resources (Corburn, 2004). Since neither these resources nor environmental burdens are randomly distributed (Pulido, 2000), communities negatively impacted from these environmental burdens must organize and engage with public participation processes to work toward creating healthier places (Minkler, 2005). These community efforts have been successful at some government levels in creating stronger environmental regulation and engendering more attention for environmental justice (Szasz, 1994; Pellow and Brulle, 2005; Brulle and Pellow, 2006), but not all this success has led to improved outcomes for siting and concentrating environmental hazards in communities of color (Pellow and Brulle, 2005). Environmental Agencies & Public Participation In 1970, 20 years before the first People of Color Environmental Leadership Conference, the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), while California also established the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Olshansky, 1996). Together the EPA, NEPA, and CEQA 37 form the basis of the U.S.’ and California’s environmental laws to protect the environment and human health. In addition to being the U.S’ first major environmental law, NEPA is a process for environmental review that occurs when a federal action may have human or environmental impacts. This federal action is broadly defined and includes construction, permitting, funding actions, and more. The NEPA process applies when a federal action may have a negative environmental or human impact, and requires the lead agency of the project to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for publically disclosing these negative impacts, and mitigate them if possible. Part of this EIA process includes opportunities for public involvement through comments and review that should then be responded to or addressed in the EIA (Council on Environmental Quality, 2007). These public participation procedures use many terms- community participation, community involvement, community engagement, stakeholder involvement, or stakeholder engagement- all meaning that any individual or group interested or impacted by an action should be given equal opportunity to be included in the decision process. The language stated in the EPA’s Waste Management guide says public participation is important for “ensuring that decisions affecting human health and the environment embrace environmental justice” (NEJAC Public Participation and Accountability Workgroup, 2000, pp. 3). These participation guidelines also note the communities most burden by environmental decisions are already facing barriers to their meaningful involvement in these decisions, as well as representation in the development and enforcement of environmental laws (NEJAC Public Participation and Accountability Workgroup, 2000). Many of these communities are considered vulnerable because of the cumulative exposures to environmental toxins and having been historically omitted from environmental and land use decisions. Under NEPA is the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC), which oversees issues of environmental justice within the EPA. In order to help the EPA work toward achieving environmental justice with its actions, including those under NEPA, they provide a checklist for effective community engagement. This checklist defines effective community engagement as a process that is: 1) a two-way process for information, 2) increases the number of community members who identify as stakeholders, 3) community outreach and input at different levels, 4) emphasizes quality over quantity of opportunities, 5) recognition of community expertise, 6) includes efforts to “meet people where they are” 7) tailored to specific community. Here NEJAC also identified potential barriers to effective participation that includes: 1. Limited resources- funding and staff to conduct the needed activities over time 2. Limited coordination between federal, state, and local governments 3. Language and cultural differences 4. Identification of coalition building with local leadership 5. Limited cultural competency 6. Limited recognition of stakeholders with environmental justice issues 7. Limited trust between community, government, and regulated industries Based on these limitations, the EPA suggests creating a customized engagement plan that focuses on education and empowerment and includes special considerations for rural areas 38 (NEJAC Public Participation and Accountability Workgroup, 2000). This recommendation for a specific plan for rural areas stems from the acknowledgement that rural areas face additional challenges to being included in the public participation. These additional challenges can include physical access to meetings and health concerns with developments such as multiple health exposures from agriculture and pesticides or water quality (NEJAC Meeting Summary, 2010). CEQA and Public Participation Based on NEPA, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was created to expand environmental protection. This California statute was established in 1970 with the goal of identifying, disclosing, and if possible, mitigating any significant environmental impacts of a project prior to its approval. CEQA itself does not regulate land use, but instead provides a framework for analysis and public disclosure of the environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation of impacts of a project (Warton and Lewis, 1976). Informing the public is the core of CEQA legislation, and when executed correctly, this is exactly what CEQA achieves, but CEQA is limited in its ability to inform, and informing is not the same as involving. Despite the inherent limitations to CEQA, the process of informing and disclosing, and not in outcomes or decisions, it remains a tool for environmental justice (Cole, 1993; Cole and Foster, 2001). Environmental justice activists and lawyers have pointed to CEQA’s public participation requirements, or the lack of their fulfillment, as a means of challenging a project proposal. In this way, CEQA is an environmental justice tool because it provides two essential things for environmental justice communities: a legal avenue for challenging potentially harmful projects, and most importantly it provides a platform for community voice where concerned residents can speak their opinions, meet with decision-makers directly, and receive answers to their questions (Cole, 1994b; Kuhn, 1998). This aspect of including the community voice is noted as more important than CEQA being used as a legal tool because when lawyers go to court, community voices do not follow (Cole, 1993), which then omits one of the founding Environmental Justice Principles of “we speak for ourselves” (Cole, 1994b). At its best, CEQA can open a dialog between government officials, private corporations, and residents. Regardless of its intention, today CEQA is a powerful tool for working towards environmental justice because of the explicit inclusion for meaningful public participation (Cole, 1994b; Kuhn, 1998). The Tanner Act (1986) In addition to CEQA legislation requiring public input on all projects with an environmental impact, the 1986 Tanner Act in California was specifically enacted to make siting of toxic facilities more amenable to communities by including a seven-member committee comprised of three different interests. The Tanner Act cited previous procedures as not providing meaningful opportunities for public involvement as before Tanner, the only legal requirement in hazardous facility siting was CEQA and a review of the Health and Safety Code (Cole, 1999). The fact the California legislature passed the Tanner Act stating the then requirements did not allow for meaningful public participation in siting decisions shows the limitations for CEQA’s ability to meaningfully include the public in any environmental impact review process. 39 Despite the California legislature’s enthusiasm for implementing the Tanner Act for meaningful participation, Cole (1999), however, noted the law came from a lengthy process that assessed the hazardous waste facilities in California and is designed to permit these facilities “over local opposition yet purports to give local residents input in the siting decision” (Cole, 1999, pp.735). To ensure this local control and community empowerment, Tanner requires the creation of a seven-member Local Assessment Committee (LAC) that is appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Despite its best intentions, the Tanner Act has not always been successful in creating meaningful public participation. Using three case studies of the Tanner Act in California, Cole (1999) showed the limitations for community involvement with hazardous waste siting. In one case of Martinez, CA, the best-case scenario of the LAC where it worked as designed and active members, people were informed, engaged, and supported by local government agencies. This case is considered a best-case scenario because those involved with the process felt heard, and the proposed project was cancelled. In another example of the Tanner Act, Kettleman City is used to demonstrate the failure of the public participation process, as it did not provide opportunities for public input. The third case presented was also considered an unsuccessful use of the Tanner Act. This case was with Buttonwillow, CA and involved the permitting process to expand a toxic waste facility. In Buttonwillow, as in Kettleman, the community did not feel heard in the process or able to give input on the permitting decision. Ultimately, the waste site was approved for expansion, despite community opposition that included a lawsuit. Both the Kettleman and Buttonwillow cases were considered unsuccessful at involving the public in the permitting process because the committee members appointed by the Board of Supervisors were selected based on their support for the projects, public meetings were not held in convenient locations, and few to none of the committee members were from the impacted communities (Cole, 1999). In addition to these challenges with the Tanner Act, the committee members appointed did not represent the racial makeup of the area in Kettleman or Buttonwillow. In Martinez, the committee members were 100% white and Martinez was 88% white. In Kettleman and Buttonwillow, however, their committees were also 86% (Kettleman) and 91% (Buttonwillow) white, but at the time Kettleman was 95% Latino and Buttonwillow 65% Black or Latino (Cole, 1999). These discrepancies with the racial makeup of the community versus that of the committee representing the community in shows the lack of representativeness of the committees appointed to represent the communities in Kettleman and Buttonwillow. Although the Tanner Act gave promise to public involvement with hazardous permitting and siting, its implementation by local county government agents has resulted in the process meeting legal requirements without meaningful participation (Cole, 1999). Environmental Justice Strategies The movement for environmental justice has utilized a variety of strategies beyond public participation drawing from other social movements (Szasz, 1994; Cole and Foster, 2001). These strategies include targeting multiple government agencies, the use of public participation and community organizing (Walsh et al, 1997; Foster and Cole, 2001; Sicotte, 2010), the ability to attract outside resources and support (Roberts and Toffolon-Weiss, 2001), use of media (Perez et al, 2015), coalition building (Mix, 2011), and legal strategies (Cole and Foster, 2001). Each of these strategies proved effective in stopping, slowing, or closing a polluting industry, or in 40 supporting the development of laws that could further protect the environment and health of a community. The environmental justice movement’s success is then visible with the victories in local struggles, legal wins and losses, and changes in national environmental justice policy (Foster, 1998; Roberts and Toffolon-Weiss, 2001). Community Organizing One strategy for challenging permitting and siting decisions of polluting industries has been the successful use of public participation and community organizing. Sicotte (2010) used a case study of a neighborhood in Philadelphia that organized and successfully utilized the public participation process to build power in their community and halt the building of multiple polluting facilities, including distribution centers, factories, and waste facilities. This urban neighborhood is a somewhat unique case in that 60% of the land is zoned for industrial use, but also because the neighborhood’s organization previously won them the ability to have a formal role with land use decisions. This win was the result of years of organizing into a formal group, and the city’s desire to have them as a formal partner as the city knew it would be easier to work with them and include them from the start of projects. This desire to work with, and not against, came after years of community organizing where city council members were inundated with residents, rallies, and newspaper attention. Here this case shows the ability of community organizing to successfully utilize public participation, but only after the group applied political pressure to elected officials who ultimately found it easier to work with the group than against. In places without a local government or an urban voter constituency, low population and voter counts are an inherent political disadvantage (Sicotte, 2010). Coalition Building In addition to community organizing, the use of coalitions with public participation processes can bring together resources for effectively applying political pressure to sway environmental decisions (Morris, 1981; Mix, 2011). Drawing on strategies and success of the Civil Rights movement, Morris (1981) argued the use of coalition during the Civil Rights Movement were successful in their attempts to create policy reform, and they were most successful when implementing specific tactics and strategies, such as achieving increased voter registration (Morris, 1981). Other research has validated this work showing coalitions are most effective when they have a specific goal (Hathway and Meyer, 1993) or similar ideologies and purpose (Beamish and Luebbers, 2009). Additionally, coalition building can be most effective in places with a limited voting constituency or elected officials to apply political pressure on. In rural areas with low voter numbers and unincorporated places without local elected officials, such as a city council, political pressure is most effective when it comes from a larger coalition targeting a state or federal agency (Cole and Foster, 2001). In this way, collation building not only shares resources and information to build political power, but in rural or sparsely populated areas, coalitions bring together constituents from multiple political jurisdictions to target larger state or federal regulating agencies. 41 Litigation & Legislation Legal strategies have been effective for targeting illegal or less inclusive public participation processes, as well as for challenging siting and permitting decisions (Cole, 1994; Colopy, 1994; Collin, 1994; Foster, 1998; Cole and Foster, 2001). These legal strategies have taken many forms, but the most prominent is the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 6), which can be applied to any program or activity receiving federal funding and prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin (Abernathy, 1981; Colopy, 1994; Collin, 1994; Worsham, 1999; Ramo, 2013). Although Title VI has been successful with the EPA on some environmental justice case, there are many more Title VI claims submitted than are accepted (Lombardi et al, 2015). While in the early 1990s it was hopeful Title VI could be used with environmental justice issues (Mitchell, 1990), this hope was diminished as communities were attempting to use when courts were narrowing the interpretation of Civil Rights laws (Gordon and Harley, 2005). The landmark Supreme Court decision in 2001 of Alexander v. Sandoval codified the limitations of using Title VI by requiring these cases prove intent (Foster, 2008; Mohai et al, 2009). While Title VI was limited its ability before Sandoval to bring about environmental justice, the supreme court ruling has made it near impossible to show an agency was intentionally racially discriminatory in their actions (Mason, 2003). Title VI is also limited in that it can be used only against a program or entity receiving federal funding. While Title VI applies at a federal level, California has a similar legal statute titled Government Code Section 11135 that states: No person in the State of California shall on the basis of, race, national origin, ethnic group, religion, age sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or disability be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be lawfully subjected to discrimination...by any state agency, is funded by the state, or receives financial assistance from the state. (CA Government Code 11135-11139.7, section a) This California law is different from Title VI in an important way that still carries hope for its use with environmental justice cases because it does not require showing intent, only disparate impact (Ramo, 2013). Many lawyers and environmental justice advocates in California are now looking to the potential for using Gov. code 11135, including the California attorney general, Kamala Harris. In 2012, Harris’ office published a fact sheet on how Gov. Code 11135 applies to issues of environmental justice and specifically how to use it with CEQA (Office of the Attorney General, 2012). This California law maybe promising for future litigation strategies, but all legal strategies are inherently limited due to their resources required (Cable, Mix, Hastings, 2005). Despite each of the strategies having inherent limitations, together they have produced short and long-term environmental justice wins in the form of legislative and government changes. At both the federal and state level, environmental justice advocates have impacted policies, practices, and helped establish laws to further protect the health of low-income and communities of color (Brulle and Pellow, 2006; Mohai et al, 2009). Under the EPA, the 42 definition of environmental protection has expanded from enforcing federal environmental laws that were based more conservation and preservation of land to having a more human focus. This expanded definition is also evident by the shift in focus from issues pertaining to the Resources and Conservation Act to issues of air pollution and climate change. As the agenda and focus of the EPA has evolved, so have the laws it enforces, and the policies for enforcement. Before the EPA’s creation in 1970, environmental laws included air, water, and land laws such as the Endangered Species and Preservation Act of 1966 and Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, Wilderness Act of 1964, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, but also the Air Quality Act if 1967. Since 1970 the federal laws relating to the environment have expanded to include issues effecting human health, like drinking water, hazardous waste, and global warming (Gottlieb, 2005; College, 2011; Dunlap and Mertig, 2014). National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) While the EPA was expanding their definition of environment beyond wilderness and environmental protection for endangered species, by the 1990s environmental justice advocates were directly influencing federal policies. In 1990 the US EPA Environmental Equity Workgroup was formed as a response to political pressure (Cutter, 1995). This workgroup was designed to evaluate evidence that communities of color were more likely to host environmental burdens, identify factors contributing these burdens, and suggest strategies for improvement. The workgroup released a study in 1992 confirming earlier studies showing the correlation between hazardous waste facilities and communities of color. Although the workgroup showed a correlation, researchers criticized the study for only looking at facility location and not the EPA’s enforcement or regulation of laws or decision-making practices (Mohai, 1993). Despite the methodological limitations of the study, it provided the motivation for future action and in 1992 Senator Al Gore and Congressman John Lewis introduced the first Environmental Justice Act of 1992. The Act had 44 sponsors, but never made it out of committee hearings and ultimately attempts to even bring the legislation to a vote failed (Hasler, 1993). The following year the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) was founded to develop environmental justice strategies within the EPA. The 25 member NEJAC group is premised upon the importance of public participation as their role is advising and generating recommendations to the EPA on issues of environmental justice. Despite their intentions for advising the EPA on issues of environmental justice, their role has been criticized as lacking enforcement or the ability to bring about environmental justice (Konisky, 2015) While the creation of the EPA Environmental Equity Workgroup and the formation of NEJAC were historic wins for the environmental justice movement signaling the institutionalization of environmental justice issues, Clinton’s executive order was the first major action on environmental justice bringing legitimacy and further attention to the movement (Bullard, 2000). Executive order 12898 officially titled, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, included six sections for directing federal agencies to create and implement environmental justice strategies. Of these six sections, one is dedicated to public participation stating federal agencies may translate documents and ensure all documents and notices are publically accessible (Executive Order 12898, 1994). While the signing of the order was a move in the right direction, the vague 43 language on implementation left the order with little enforcement ability. One criticism often brought against the order, is its limited ability to state how environmental justice will be incorporated into environmental decisions, as its focus is on the adopt and implementation of strategies left to agencies’ discretion on what this ultimately looks like (Bass, 1998). From the signing of executive order there are environmental justice programs in the 17 federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Transportation (DOT), Small Business Administration (SBA), US Health and Human Services (HHS), US Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Energy (DOE), and the US Department of Agriculture (DOA). While the EPA is considered the lead actor for implementing executive order 12898, all of these federal agencies must comply. They show this by creating out annual reports, lead work groups, or hold annual meetings to show how they are working toward achieving environmental justice in their agencies. In 2005, however, the EPA dropped race as a factor for identifying vulnerable or disadvantaged communities targeted for prioritization. The agency announced their decision on the grounds that all communities should be treated equally, regardless of race. This action led to the EPA’s Office of Inspector General stating the EPA has failed to implement the intent of Executive Order 12898. In 2008, President Obama appointed a new administrator of the EPA, who declared environmental justice as one of her priorities (Huang, 2014). California Environmental Justice Laws From federal legislation in the early 1990s came a wave of state laws focused on environmental justice. At the state level, Senate Bill (SB) 115 passed in 1999, known as the first environmental justice bill. Although this was the first environmental justice bill passed in California, it was not the first to be introduced. Potential environmental justice bills were proposed in California going back to 1991, but then Governor Peter Wilson vetoed each one based on the argument that CEQA legislation was sufficient for addressing these issues (Peter, 2010). Although the five bills introduced between 1991 and 1997 were vetoed, they paved the way for the future environmental justice laws (Farrell, 2007). SB 115 (Solis) provided a statutory definition of environmental justice and directed CalEPA to develop an environmental justice mission statements under the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). It also created a framework for coordinating environmental justice efforts in California, but did not curb disproportionate impacts with the idea being that through the coordination, the impacts would not happen (Cal. Government Code § 65040.12 and Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 72000-01). Cal EPA later implemented SB 115 through its Environmental Justice Working Group and Citizen Advisory Panel, two groups it was mandated to create from SB 89 (Escutia), which was passed and signed in 2000. In 2004, CalEPA released their Environmental Justice Action Plan, and in 2014 they released an update to the plan. For their 2004 release, the CalEPA invited 250 community organizations to participate in their identification of environmental justice issues and concerns (Office of Planning and Research, 2003). While the success of these laws depends on the operalization of success set by the CalEPA, they have supported the codification of environmental justice issues in CalEPA’s agenda. This operalization matters because if success 44 is measured by the number of staff hired, committees organized, or grants delivered, then CalEPA is meeting its goals (CalEPA, 2014; CalEPA, 2016), but if success is measured by the number of communities of color hosting a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards, then the environmental laws are failing the communities that pushed for them and need them the most (UCC, 2007). Conclusion As evidenced by the state and federal laws, committees, workgroups, and plans, the environmental justice movement and advocates have made strides bringing attention to the health and environmental hazards facing their communities. Despite the proliferation of environmental justice focused laws, changes with pollution concentrated in communities of color have been slow, if occurring at all. This slow implementation is due to a closed political environment or because even good environmental policies are limited by their implementation (Pellow, 2004). While the movement’s success is visible through the numerous laws created in direct response to community organizing or action taken to reduce pollution in communities of color, there is much to do in overcoming environmental racism. Research conducted 20 years after the UCC’s 1987 report showed the problem of pollution concentrated in low-income communities of color has not only not improved, but also in some places worsened (UCC, 2007). Other research showing the lack of enforcement of environmental laws and Title VI, and the retrenchment of environmental justice policies points to the need for evaluating the movement and strategies (Benford, 2005). Public participation is both one potential strategy for working toward environmental justice, and itself an environmental justice issue. It’s a strategy based on creating more just decisions based on a fairer process, but its success depends on its implementation. Scholars have shown the limitations of public participation in that the legal requirements are not enough to create meaningful public participation and what is really needed is to build community capacity or social capital (Innes and Booher, 2004), along with what planners can do to support or encourage this increase of capacity (Forester, 2006). The promotion of community participation through empowerment, capacity, or social capital, however, will not be able to achieve meaningful participation if the government agencies implementing these processes do not consider the community, the opposition and supporters, and what they need to be meaningfully involved. While the inclusion of public participation is in itself a change for communities once marginalized from environmental decisions, the way in which government agencies interpret the requirements around public participation has varied. These variations in implementation have created situations where governments have increased opportunities for participation by providing more meetings, more reports, and more comments, but this has not necessarily led to more meaningful participation or improved outcomes (Burton and Mustelen, 2013). Through the use of community based strategies, the environmental justice movement has helped create new tools for community involvement with environmental decisions, along with assisting government agencies with being more informed on the health and environmental concerns facing communities of color. Since 1982 and Warren County, the federal and state 45 government have recognized the need for environmental justice polices, but these laws and practices have fallen short in protecting communities (Pellow and Brulle, 2005). Since public participation is the only strategy that is a state mandated legal requirement, communities should know how to use it effectively to their advantage, what the opportunities are, and the limitations for its use. This leads to questioning the ability for communities opposing toxic facilities to effectively use public participation, and examine what other strategies have they used to make the process more meaningful. Chapter 2 References Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 239–251. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X Abernathy, C. F. (1981). Title VI and the Constitution: A Regulatory Model for Defining Discrimination. Georgetown Law Journal, 70, 1. Alston, D. (1991). The Summit: Transforming a Movement | Reimagine! Race, Poverty, and the Environment, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.reimaginerpe.org/20years/alston Anderton, D. L., Anderson, A. B., Oakes, J. M., & Fraser, M. R. (1994). Environmental Equity: The Demographics of Dumping. Demography, 31(2), 229–248. Anthony, C. (2005). The Environmental Justice Movement: An Activist’s Perspective. In Power, justice, and the environment: a critical appraisal of the environmental justice movement. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Armstrong, M. (1997). Race and Property Values in Entrenched Segregation. University of Miami Law Review, 52, 1051. Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Asch, P., & Seneca, J. J. (1978). Some Evidence on the Distribution of Air Quality. Land Economics, 54(3), 278–297. http://doi.org/10.2307/3145999 Auyong, J., Pointer, A., & Wellington, N. (2003). Opportunities for Environmental Justice in California. Agency by Agency. San Francisco, CA: Public Law Research Institute. University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Retrieved from http://gov.uchastings.edu/public- law/docs/PLRI_Agency-by-Agency_03 Babones, S. J. (2008). Income inequality and population health: Correlation and causality. Social Science & Medicine, 66(7), 1614–1626. Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A., & Sulivan, H. (2003). Constituting “the public” in public participation. Public Administration, 81(2), 379–399. Bass, R. (1998). Evaluating environmental justice under the national environmental policy act. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(1), 83–92. Beamish, T. D., & Luebbers, A. J. (2009). Alliance Building across Social Movements: Bridging Difference in a Peace and Justice Coalition. Social Problems, 56(4), 647–676. Been, V. (1992). What’s fairness got to do with it? Environmental justice and the siting of locally undesirable land uses. Cornell L. Rev., 78, 1001. Beierle, T. C. (1998). Public participation in environmental decisions: an evaluation framework using social goals. Resources for the Future Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10497/1/dp990006 46 Benford, R. (2005). The half-life of the environmental justice frame: innovation, diffusion, and stagnation. In Power, Justice, and the Environment. (pp. 37–54). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bonds, A. (2013). Economic Development, Racialization, and Privilege: “Yes in My Backyard” Prison Politics and the Reinvention of Madras, Oregon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(6), 1389–1405. Braveman, P., & Gruskin, S. (2003). Defining equity in health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(4), 254–258. http://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.4.254 Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1), 103–124. Bryant, B. (1995). Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions. Island Press. Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 44–55. Bullard, R. (Ed.). (1993a). Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. _____. (1993b). Environmental Racism and Invisible Communities. West Virginia Law Review, 96, 1037. _____. (1993c). Legacy of American Apartheid and Environmental Racism, The. . John’s J. Legal Comment., 9, 445. _____. (1999). Dismantling Environmental Racism in the USA. Local Environment, 4(1), 5–19. http://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725577 _____. (2015). Environmental Racism and the Environmental Justice Movement. In M. A. Cahn, K. E. O’Brien, & R. O’Brien (Eds.), Thinking About the Environment: Readings on Politics, Property and the Physical World. Routledge. Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmentalism and public policy: Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 555–578. Burby, R., & Strong, D. (1997). Coping with Chemicals: Blacks, Whites, Planners, and Industrial Pollution - Journal of the American Planning Association - Volume 63, Issue 4. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(4), 469–480. Burton, P., & Mustelin, J. (2013). Planning for Climate Change: Is Greater Public Participation the Key to Success? Urban Policy and Research, 31(4), 399–415. Cable, S., Mix, T., & Hastings, D. (2005). Mission Impossible? Environmental justice activists’ collaborations with professional environmentalists and with academics. In Power, Justice, and the Environment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. CalEPA. (2014). Cal EPA Environmental Justice Plan Update. CalEPA. (2016). Environmental Justice Program Update. A report to the Governor and the Legislature on actions taken to implement Public Resources Code Sections 71110-71116. Office of the Secretary Environmental Justice Program. Retrieved from http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/Documents/2016/EJReport CEQA. (1993). California Environmental Quality Act: CEQA Guidelines Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California. California Government Code Section 11135-11139.7. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=11001-12000&file=11135-11139.7 California Natural Resources Agency. (2016). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidlines. Retrieved from http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines 47 Čapek, S. M. (1993). The “Environmental Justice” Frame: A Conceptual Discussion and an Application. Social Problems, 40(1), 5–24. http://doi.org/10.2307/3097023 Carson, R., Lear, L., & Wilson, E. O. (2002). Silent Spring (Anniversary edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Centner, T., Kriesel, W., & Keeler, A. (1996). Environmental Justice and Toxic Releases: Establishing Evidence of Discriminatory Effect Based on Race and Not Income. Wisconsin Environmental Law Journal, 3(119). Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33(16), 2685–2692. http://doi.org/10.1021/es980500g Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 6, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964). Cole, L. (1992). Empowerment as the key to environmental protection: the need for environmental poverty law. Ecology LQ, 19, 619. _____. (1994a). Environmental Justice Litigation: Another Stone in David’s Sling. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 21(3), 523 _____. (1994b). Struggle of Kettleman City: Lessons for the Movement, The. Md. J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 5, 67. _____. (1999). Theory and Reality of Community-Based Environmental Decisionmaking: The Failure of California’s Tanner Act and Its Implications for Environmental Justice, The. Ecology LQ, 25, 733. Cole, L. W., & Foster, S. R. (2001). From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement (First Edition). New York: NYU Press. College, B. K., De Anza. (2011). First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Collin, R. W. (1994). Review of the Legal Literature on Environmental Racism, Environmental Equity, and Environmental Justice. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 9, 121. Colopy, J. H. (1994). Road Less Traveled: Pursuing Environmental Justice through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 13, 125. Cook, K., & Hegtvedt, K. (1983). Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001245 Corburn, J. (2004). Confronting the Challenges in Reconnecting Urban Planning and Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 541–546. _____. (2009). Toward the Healthy City: People, Places, and the Politics of Urban Planning. MIT Press. Council on Environmental Quality. (2007). A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA, Having your voice heard. Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved from http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nm/programs/planning/planning_docs.Par.53208.File.dat /A_Citizens_Guide_to_NEPA Cummins, S., Curtis, S., Diez-Roux, A. V., & Macintyre, S. (2007). Understanding and representing “place” in health research: A relational approach. Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1825–1838. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.036 Cutter, S. L. (1995). Race, class and environmental justice. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 111–122. http://doi.org/10.1177/030913259501900111 _____. (2003). The Vulnerability of Science and the Science of Vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 1–12. 48 Cutter, S. L., Holm, D., & Clark, L. (1996). The Role of Geographic Scale in Monitoring Environmental Justice. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 517–526. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01097.x Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338. Davidson, P., & Anderton, D. L. (2000). Demographics of dumping ii: a national environmental equity survey and the distribution of hazardous materials handlers. Demography, 37(4), 461– 466. http://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2000.0002 Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice. Journal of Social Issues. Downey, L. (1998). Environmental Injustice: Is Race or Income a Better Predictor? Social Science Quarterly, 79(4), 766–778. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (2014). American Environmentalism: The US Environmental Movement, 1970-1990. Taylor & Francis. Executive Order 12898. (1994). Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations: executive order 12898. Federal Register, 59(32), 7629–7633. Faber, D. (Ed.). (1998). The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States (1 edition). New York: The Guilford Press. Farrell, C. (2007). SB 115: California’s Response to Environmental Justice- Process Over Substance. Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 1(1), 9. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power Democracy in Practice. University of Chicago Press. _____. (2002). Bringing Power to Planning Research One Researcher’s Praxis Story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), 353–366. Forester, J. (2006). Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447–456. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976765 Foster, S. (1998). Justice from the ground up: Distributive inequities, grassroots resistance, and the transformative politics of the environmental justice movement. California Law Review, 775– 841. Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T. L. et al. 2006. Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72 (1): 75-87. Freeman, A. (1974). On estimating air pollution control benefits from land value studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1(1), 74–83. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66–75. GAO. (1983). Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills And Their Correlation With Racial And Economic Status Of Surrounding Communities (No. GAO/RCED-83-168). United States General Accounting Office. Godsil, R. D. (1991). Remedying Environmental Racism. Michigan Law Review, 90(2), 394–427. Gotham, K. F. (2000). Urban Space, Restrictive Covenants and the Origins of Racial Residential Segregation in a US City, 1900–50. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3), 616–633. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00268 Gottlieb, R. (2005). Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Island Press. 49 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (2014). NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews (p. 55). Executive Office of the President of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/NEPA_CEQA_Handbook_Feb2014 Hamilton, J. T. (1995). Testing for environmental racism: Prejudice, profits, political power? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(1), 107–132. Hancock, T.1996. Planning and creating healthy and sustainable cities: the challenge for the 21st century, In, Price, C. and A. Tsouros (eds), Our Cities, Our Future: Policies and Action Plans for Health and Sustainable Development, WHO, Copenhagen. Hasler, C. L. (1993). Proposed Environmental Justice Act: I Have a (Green) Dream, The. U. Puget Sound L. Rev., 17, 417. Hathaway, W., & Meyer, D. S. (1993). Competition and Cooperation in Social Movement Coalitions: Lobbying for Peace in the 1980s. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 38, 157–183. Heiman, M. K. (1996). Race, Waste, and Class: New Perspectives on Environmental Justice. Antipode, 28(2), 111–121. Holifield, R., Porter, M., & Walker, G. (2009). Introduction Spaces of Environmental Justice: Frameworks for Critical Engagement. Antipode, 41(4), 591–612. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8330.2009.00690.x Huang, A. (2014, February 10). The 20th Anniversary of President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. Retrieved June 22, 2016, from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/albert- huang/20th-anniversary-president-clintons-executive-order-12898-environmental-justice Hunold, C., & Young, I. M. (1998). Justice, Democracy, and Hazardous Siting. Political Studies, 46(1), 82–95. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00131 Hurley, A. (1995). Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945-1980. Univ of North Carolina Press. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process. Harvard Business Review, 75, 65–75. King, C., Feltey, K., & Susel, B. (1998). The Question of Participation: toward authentic public particpation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–327. Kiniyalocts, M. (2000). Environmental justice : avoiding the difficulty of proving discriminatory intent in hazardous waste siting decisions. Retrieved from http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/21945 Kmiec, D. W. (1986). Exclusionary Zoning and Purposeful Racial Segregation in Housing: Two Wrongs Deserving Separate Remedies. The Urban Lawyer, 18(2), 393–422. Konisky, D. M. (2015). Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Justice. MIT Press. Kramer, M. R., & Hogue, C. R. (2009). Is Segregation Bad for Your Health? Epidemiologic Reviews, 31(1), 178–194. Krieger, N. (2000). Epidemiology and social sciences: Toward a critical reengagement in the 21st century. Epidemiologic Reviews 22: 155-163. Kuhn, S. (1998). Expanding public participation is essential to environmental justice and the democratic decisionmaking process. Ecology LQ, 25, 647. Laurian, L. (2004). Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Findings from Communities Facing Toxic Waste Cleanup. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 53–65. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976338 50 Lawrence, R. L., Daniels, S. E., & Stankey, G. H. (1997). Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources, 10(6), 577–589. Lavelle, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Unequal Protection. The Racial Divide in Environmental Law, A Special Investigation. The National Law Journal, 15(3). Lombardi, K., Buford, T., & Greene, R. (2015, August 3). Environmental racism persists, and the EPA is one reason why. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/03/17668/environmental-racism-persists-and-epa-one- reason-why Maantay, J. (2001). Zoning, equity, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(7), 1033–1041. _____. (2002). Zoning Law, Health, and Environmental Justice: What’s the Connection? The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(4), 572–593. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2002.tb00427.x Macintyre, S., Ellaway, A and Cummins,S.. 2002. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Social Science & Medicine. 55(1):125-139. Maguire, L. A., & Lind, E. A. (2003). Public participation in environmental decisions: stakeholders, authorities and procedural justice. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 3(2), 133–148. Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A., & Taylor, S. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1661–1669. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6 Massey, D. S., & Rothwell, J. (2009). The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas. Urban Affairs Review. http://doi.org/10.1177/1078087409334163 Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press. Mattheisen, M. D. (2003). Effect of Alexander v. Sandoval on Federal Environmental Civil Rights (Environmental Justice) Policy, The. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 13, 35. McGurty, E. (2009). Transforming Environmentalism: Warren County, PCBs, and the Origins of Environmental Justice. Rutgers University Press. McGurty, E. M. (2000). Warren County, NC, and the Emergence of the Environmental Justice Movement: Unlikely Coalitions and Shared Meanings in Local Collective Action. Society & Natural Resources, 13(4), 373–387. http://doi.org/10.1080/089419200279027 Merchant, C. (2003). Shades of Darkness: Race and Environmental History. Environmental History, 8(3), 380–394. http://doi.org/10.2307/3986200 Minkler, M. (2005). Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. Rutgers University Press. Mitchell, C. M. (1990). Environmental racism: Race as a primary factor in the selection of hazardous waste sites. Nat’l Black LJ, 12, 176. Mix, T. L. (2011). Rally the People: Building Local-Environmental Justice Grassroots Coalitions and Enhancing Social Capital*: RALLY THE PEOPLE. Sociological Inquiry, 81(2), 174–194. Mohai, P. (1993). Commentary: Environmental Equity. Environment, 35, 2–4. Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1992). Environmental Injustice: Weighing Race and Class as Factors in the Distribution of Environmental Hazards. University of Colorado Law Review, 63, 921. Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2015). Which came first, people or pollution? A review of theory and evidence from longitudinal environmental justice studies. Environmental Research Letters, 10(12), 125011. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125011 51 Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 405–430. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508- 094348 Morello-Frosch, R., & Lopez, R. (2006). The riskscape and the color line: Examining the role of segregation in environmental health disparities. Environmental Research, 102(2), 181–196. Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., & Sadd, J. (2001). Environmental justice and Southern California’s “riskscape” the distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among diverse communities. Urban Affairs Review, 36(4), 551–578. Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. 2002. Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med. 22:23–29. Morris, A. (1981). Black Southern Student Sit-In Movement: An Indigenous Perspective. NEJAC Meeting Summary. (2010). Summary of the Public Meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Kansas City, Missouri: Environmental Protection Agency. NEJAC Public Participation and Accountability Workgroup. (2000). The Model Plan for Public Participation. Environmental Protection Agency. NEPA. (2013). Model Guidelines for Public Participation. EPA. Neumann, C. M., Forman, D. L., & Rothlein, J. E. (1998). Hazard screening of chemical releases and environmental equity analysis of populations proximate to toxic release inventory facilities in Oregon. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106(4), 217–226. Office of Planning and Research. (2003). Environmental Justice in California State Government. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Retrieved from https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_EJ_Report_Oct2003 Office of the Attorney General. (2012). Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level. Legal Background. California Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/ej_fact_sheet Olshansky, R. B. (1996). Evaluation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental Management, 1(20), 11–23. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial Formation in the United States (3 edition). New York: Routledge. Pastor, M. (2003). Building Social Capital to Protect Natural Capital: The Quest for Environmental Justice. In Natural Assets: Democratizing Ownership Of Nature. Island Press. Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R., & Sadd, J. L. (2005). The Air is Always Cleaner on the Other Side: Race, Space, and Ambient Air Toxics Exposures in California. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(2), 127–148. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00228.x Pastor, M., Sadd, J., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(1), 1–21. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press. Pellow, D. (2004). The Politics of Illegal Dumping: An Environmental Justice Framework. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 511–525. Pellow, D. N., & Brulle, R. J. (2005). Power, justice, and the environment: toward critical environmental justice studies. Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement, 1–19. Pendall, R. (2000). Local Land Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 125–142. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976094 52 Perez, A. C., Grafton, B., Mohai, P., Hardin, R., Hintzen, K., & Orvis, S. (2015). Evolution of the environmental justice movement: activism, formalization and differentiation. Environmental Research Letters, 10(10), 105002. Peter, E. (2010). Implementing Environmental Justice: The New Agenda for California State Agencies. Golden Gate University Law Review, 31(4). PhD, D. R. F. (Ed.). (1998). The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States (1 edition). New York: The Guilford Press. Pitkin, H., & Shumer, S. (1982). On Participation. Democracy, 2(4), 43–54. Pulido, L. (1994). Restructuring and the Contraction and Expansion of Environmental Rights in the United States. Environment and Planning A, 26(6), 915–936. http://doi.org/10.1068/a260915 _____. (2000). Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), 12–40. Pulido, L., & Peña, D. (1998). Environmentalism and Positionality: The Early Pesticide Campaign of the United Farm Workers’ Organizing Committee, 1965-71. Race, Gender & Class, 6(1), 33–50. Pulido, L., Sidawi, S., & Vos, R. O. (1996). An Archaeology of Environmental Racism in Los Angeles. Urban Geography, 17(5), 419–439. http://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.17.5.419 Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (1st edition). New York: Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster. Quick, K., & Feldman, M. (2011). Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290. Ramo, A. (2013). Environmental Justice as an Essential Tool in Environmental Review Statutes: A New Look at Federal Policies and Civil Rights Protections and California’s Recent Initiatives. Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envt’l L. & Pol’y, 19, 41. Roberts, J. T., & Toffolon-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline (First Printing edition). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Roemer, J. E. (1998). Theories of Distributive Justice. Harvard University Press. Saegert, S., Thompson, J. P., & Warren, M. R. (2002). Social Capital and Poor Communities. Russell Sage Foundation. Schwartz, M., & Wolfe, M. (1999). Reevaluating the California Tanner Act: Public Empowerment v. Efficient Waste Disposal. California Real Property Journal, 2(13), 44–48. Senator Escutia. Environmental quality: minority and low-income populations, Cal. Government Code § 6504.12 (1998). Retrieved from ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0051- 0100/sb_89_bill_20000927_chaptered.html Senator Solis. Environmental Justice, 65040.12 Cal. Government Code 4043–44 (1998). Retrieved from ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0101- 0150/sb_115_bill_19991010_chaptered.html Shepard, P. (2002). Advancing Environmental Justice through Community-Based Participatory Research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Suppl 2), 139. Sicotte, D. (2010). Don’t Waste Us: Environmental Justice through Community Participation in Urban Planning. Environmental Justice, 3(1), 7–11. Silver, C. (1997). The Racial Origins of Zoning in America. In J. Manning Thomas & M. Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows. SAGE Publications, Inc. Szasz, A. (1994). EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice. U of Minnesota Press. 53 Szasz, A., & Meuser, M. (1997). Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory. Current Sociology, 45(3), 99–120. http://doi.org/10.1177/001139297045003006 Taylor, D. E. (2000). The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 508– 580. http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764200043004003 Turner, R. L., & Wu, D. P. (2002). Environmental justice and environmental racism: An annotated bibliography and general overview, focusing on US literature, 1996-2002. In Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Institute of International Studies (p. 1). UCC. (1987). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Public Data Access. _____. (2007). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Commission for Racial Justice. Vlahov, D. et al. 2007. Urban as a determinant of health. Journal of Urban Health. 84:16-26. Wacquant, L. (2013). Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. John Wiley & Sons. Walsh, E., Warland, R., & Smith, D. (1997). Don’t Burn It Here: Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators. Penn State University Press. Wharton, J. C., & Lewis, M. (1976). Legislative History of the California Environmental Quality Act (No. UCRL-52188). California Univ., Livermore (USA). Lawrence Livermore Lab. Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7292542 Wilson, F., & Mabhala, A. (2008). Key Concepts in Public Health (SAGE Key Concepts series). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Key-Concepts-Public-Health- SAGE/dp/1412948797 Wilson, S., Hutson, M., & Mujahid, M. (2008). How Planning and Zoning Contribute to Inequitable Development, Neighborhood Health, and Environmental Injustice. Environmental Justice, 1(4), 211–216. Wilson, W. J. and Briggs, S. (2005). The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. (X. de S. Briggs, Ed.). Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Worsham, J. B. L. (1999). Disparate impact lawsuits under Title VI, Section 602: Can a legal tool build environmental justice. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 27, 631. Yandle, T., & Burton, D. (1996). Reexamining Environmental Justice: A Statistical Analysis of Historical Hazardous Waste Landfill Siting Patterns in Metropolitan Texas. Social Science Quarterly, 77(3), 477–492. Young, I. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press. 54 Chapter 3: The Roles and Challenges for Government Agencies & Community Residents in Permitting Hazardous Facilities Local government agencies determine land use through creating and enforcing general plans and zoning ordinances. Due to the nature of land use in different regions, these general plans and zoning practices will look different in urban and rural areas. These differences matter beyond population densities because rural areas dominated by agriculture uses require large amounts of space, but this limits the space available for development and growth. Without intentional planning for high-density development, these rural spaces remain rural places. While land use planning for agriculture or preservation is debated elsewhere (Pfeffer and Lapping, 1994; Geoghegan, 2002), rural places remaining rural is important from an environmental justice perspective because toxic facilities are often sited in rural areas (Epstein and Pope, 1982; GAO, 1993; Mennis, 2002) and justified because of the low population densities (Cutter, 2012). Rural populations are inherently at a disadvantage to oppose the siting and expansion of these facilities because there are fewer residents to challenge the decision, and the project can occur with little public knowledge (Cerrell Associates, 1984). Although today state and federal laws require public participation on projects receiving federal financing and state and federal permits, rural residents continue to face barriers to being meaningfully included in the permitting process. While planning commissions have a strong hand in the development of general plans, the public has little to no involvement in these land use decisions. In rural and unincorporated areas, these decisions are made at the county level, which can be even further removed from the public’s involvement by having no city council representation, or members of the commission residing within the places they are creating. Although the public is not involved with the local land use decisions, there are opportunities for their involvement with public or private projects that involve the issuing local, state, or federal permits through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legislation. The intention of these two laws was to regulate environmental protection, while also meaningfully involving the public. While the CEQA process has been researched for its ability to improve environmental decisions (Varner, 1991; Olshansky, 1996; 1996b; Cole et al, 2004) or the importance of including the public in the CEQA process (Kuhn, 1998; Cole, 1995; Mihaly, 2010), less is known about the limitations for CEQA to involve the public in a meaningful way, especially when other opportunities for public involvement are available and the community desires to be engaged with the process. This chapter uses the case study of Kettleman City to demonstrate the benefits and limitations of CEQA and its public participation requirements to meaningfully include the public in the landfill permitting decisions. Kettleman City is a highly organized community that fought to be involved with the landfill incinerator proposal meetings in 1991 and expansion proposal meetings in 2009. Comparing the two cases of the incinerator and expansion proposals with a community that has been engaged since learning of the landfill’s existence shows the challenges they have faced, how these challenges have changed over twenty-five years, and most importantly, the possibility for CEQA and other public participation requirements to meaningfully include the public in these permitting decision. The case of Kettleman City reveals the challenges to being included in the CEQA public participation process, as well as participation opportunities beyond CEQA with the permitting of a hazardous facility. 55 The Federal, State, and Local Permitting & Public Participation Requirements Federal, State, and local government agencies all have a role in permitting hazardous waste facilities. These roles vary by government level because although the federal government sets permitting regulations, it’s state governments that approve permits, and local governing agencies implement the process. At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) covers the management of hazardous waste, but the requirements are enforced through California government agencies, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Department of Toxics Substance Control (DTSC), which approve the state permits after county governments approve the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) and conditional use permit. While permits must be obtained first in the local jurisdiction, the application for a hazardous waste facility starts with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). In operating a new facility, applicants must apply for a RCRA permit, which begins the process and the public is notified from the beginning. In the case of Kettleman City, the landfill existed on the current site since 1979, and it was a disposal site even before that time. Although today there are laws requiring public noticing for permits, meetings and informing the public that go back over forty years, in the late 1980s, the Kings County Board of Supervisors did not comply with these laws by not properly informing residents of the proposal and calling a vote on the permit without notifying the public (Corwin, 1991). It was this lack of complying with legal obligations to provide meaningful public participation opportunities that won the lawsuit against the incinerator proposal in 1991 (Cole, 1993). In 2009, however, with the Kings County Board of Supervisors complied with the legal requirements for public participation around permitting the expansion proposal, but despite their legal compliance, residents opposing the expansion project faced challenges to being meaningfully included in the permitting decision. RCRA and CEQA Public Participation Requirements In California, the key legal requirements regulating the permitting of hazardous waste are the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the California state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (DTSC, September 1998). RCRA was enacted in 1976 and is the principle federal law in the US governing the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. Under this act the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate hazardous waste throughout the US, and established the process for permitting hazardous waste in California. This process was designed to ensure hazardous waste was handled, treated, stored, and disposed in a manner safe for employees and surrounding communities. The EPA regional offices issue permits for the treatment of hazardous waste, which in California is district nine, and the EPA requirements of public participation in the permitting process of hazardous waste are located in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). While some public participation practices listed there are legal requirements, others are suggestions to encourage dialogue between agencies, applicants, and the public. The EPA states the permitting process offers multiple opportunities for public participation that includes staying informed on proposed projects through mailing lists and list serves, submitting written comments on projects, and requesting to meet with agency officials (McGregor, 1990; Munton, 1996). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legislation takes the federal policies for public involvement a step further by requiring public involvement with the public disclosure and 56 potential mitigation of negative environmental impacts. While the RCRA process for permitting hazardous waste includes opportunities of public input with the application for hazardous waste permits, CEQA takes it one step further by requiring the public disclosure of negative impacts, and opportunities for public engagement with these findings (DTSC, May 1998). Established in 1970, the California legislature passes CEQA with the goal of identifying, disclosing, and if possible, mitigating any significant environmental impacts of an environmental project prior to the project being approved. The intention was that CEQA itself would not regulate land use, but instead provides a framework for analysis and public disclosure of the environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation of impacts of a project. The fundamental objectives, and specified intent, of CEQA are to prevent significant and avoidable environmental damage by identifying and considering the environmental impacts of a proposed, and to inform government officials of these the potential negative impacts as well as disclose them to the public (Barbour and Teitz 2005). One aspect of achieving this goal for informing and disclosing is through an Environmental Impact Review (EIR). The EIR is developed by the project’s lead agency, and they must adhere to specific legal requirements for completing, circulating, and updating the EIR. After filing a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the Office of Permitting (OPR) that includes a project description, location of project, and probable environmental impacts, the lead agency will begin the draft EIR immediately without needing to wait for responses from NOP. The lead agency then holds scoping meetings to determine the scope of the environmental information required, and must he held no later than 30 days after the lead agency or project applicant has requested the meeting. Although the State of California encourages and suggests these scoping meetings be made public, they are not legally required to be public (California Natural Resources Agency, 2016). By not including the public in these early stages of development, the lead agency sets the agenda for the project and creates a barrier for public opinions and concerns from the beginning. Once the EIR is complete, it is circulated by means of a notice of public review. This notice is achieved by placing a notice a local newspaper with the largest general circulation in the area, and displayed on government websites. The notice must include the project description, a 45-day public comment period, the identified lead agency, location of information, and the date, time, and location of any public meetings. For projects occurring in rural areas, these notices immediately become a barrier for inclusion in the project as newspapers, even the largest one, are limited in their circulation, and Internet access is required to view the documents online, plus they are published in English. In Kings County, the largest newspaper is the Hanford Sentinel, an English printed-paper. This 45-day comment period is imperative in the process though because comments submitted during this time receive written response from the lead agency. The lead agency must consider all of the comments received, reply to them, and they can choose to use them to make changed to the EIR (California Natural Resources Agency, 2016). The 45-day notice must also be posted at the project site, mailed to anyone on the project mailing list including residents and property owners within a ¼ mile radius for projects including burning hazardous waste, and placed with the draft EIR in information repositories, such as libraries in the proposed area (California Natural Resources Agency, 2016). Again, the noticing requirements presents challenges for rural areas were spatial and social distances become a challenge to the process. In Kettleman City, no one lives within a ¼ mile of the site that is 3.5 57 miles away, requiring residents to know about the project through other means. Changes in technology and the way people received news and information have also made these requirements outdated as many people now get news and information from the Internet, and not newspapers or libraries. Posting notices in newspapers and libraries, and in English creates a barrier for residents to being informed on the project, and limits their involvement at meetings and providing comments. Informing the public is the core of CEQA legislation, and when executed correctly, this is exactly what CEQA achieves, but CEQA is limited in its ability to inform, and informing is not the same as involving (Olshansky, 1996). As Table 6 shows, there are multiple opportunities for public participation within the EIR process, but the level of involvement varies within a narrow window of options from public comment to public hearing. The table highlights CEQA’s public participation requirements along with how Kings County, as the lead agency, fulfilled these requirements for the expansion project. Kings County then provided all of the legally required opportunities for public participation and complied with the notice requirement. In 1988, the year the incinerator was proposed in Kettleman City, CEQA guidelines were revised to include the provision of electronic formats whenever possible, including notices of all public hearings (Barbour and Teitz, 2005). Although this provision was made available to government agencies, its unclear how many people were able to take advantage of these opportunities in rural places that even today have limited Internet access. Table 6 also highlights the role of the government agencies and the public within the CEQA process. The role of the government with CEQA is to lead the process and use the information they identify to make a decision on the project, while the role of the public is more limited than the government role with providing comments on what the government has identified, or commenting on the process through legal action challenging the process. Originally CEQA required identifying environmental impacts of the proposed project, as well as alternatives and the selection of whichever had the least impact, but changes to CEQA in 1976 introduced statements of overriding considerations. The introduction of overriding considerations shifted the idea of CEQA from both a procedural requirements and evaluation of outcomes to only relying on the procedural (Barbour and Teitz, 2005). CEQA’s Public Participation Limitations As it is written now, CEQA is more procedure focused than outcome driven. That is, permit decisions based on CEQA analysis assesses if the process was carried out correctly and legally, rather than assessing the actual outcome of approving the project. The aspect of the original CEQA language that did require an assessment of the outcomes, including alternatives and the permitting based on the scenario with the least impact was removed with the introduction of overriding considerations. Now, an EIR must include the impact of the project and if a significant impact is found, a statement of overriding consideration can be added to justify the need for permitting a project known to cause a significant environmental impact. These considerations are called “significant, but unavoidable” and by including them in the EIR, their declaration make harmful outcomes a procedural issue instead of an outcome evaluation. 58 Table 6: CEQA Public Participation Requirements and Kings County Opportunities for the landfill expansion proposal Step 1. Project Definition CEQA Requirement- Public Participation- Kings County Opportunity- Expansion Proposal Prepare Environmental Impact Classification form. No requirement for any public involvement. None. Step 2. Negative Declaration CEQA Requirement Public Participation Kings County Opportunity File public Notice of Intent; provide 30 day public review. Requirement for public comment submission with an option to have a public hearing. WM filed a notice of intent on April 11, 2005 and application submitted on July 12, 2005 and circulated for 30 days. Step 3. EIR CEQA Requirement Public Participation Kings County Opportunity File and circulate Notice of Preparation; provide 30 days for public comment Requirement for written comments with an option for meetings Filed in 2004 and circulated for 30 days. A revised NOP was circulated in August 2005. Option to have a scoping meeting Attend a scoping meeting to provide feedback on the project proposal None. File a Notice of Completion and publish a Notice of Availability. Circulate copies of both for 45 day review Submit written comments on the draft EIR. Circulated in 2009. Host a public hearing on the Draft EIR Submit comments on the draft EIR. Kings County Planning Commission held public meeting on October 5, 2009. Prepare responses to draft EIR in a final EIR. No requirements for public involvement. None. Provide responses ten days prior to project approval. Review the responses. Reviewed responses and provided comments. Certify the Final EIR and Final NOD. 30-day statute of limitations for legal challenges. Certified December 2009. 59 Since CEQA is procedurally focused instead of outcome driven, the compatibility of CEQA legislation with Environmental Justice policies is limited to procedures. This means that as the main environmental law in California, CEQA can only go as far including the public in the process of informing and disclosing. The impact then of public participation is important as a vehicle for community voices and a legal tool for opposition, but limited in the ability to consider these voices or concerns in the outcomes. One main thought of researchers is to amplify the community voice through the government agencies support in empowering community involvement, building social capital, or strengthening community capacity to be involved in the process (Innes and Booher, 2004; Forester, 2006), but within a procedurally driven policy such as CEQA, community empowerment in the process is confined to the process. Even when community residents are fully empowered to participate in the process, the limitations of the process mean their engagement only goes so far. Despite the inherent limitations to only include the public in the process of informing and disclosing, and not in outcomes or decisions, it remains a tool for environmental justice. Environmental justice activists and lawyers have pointed to CEQA public participation requirements, or the lack of their fulfillment, as a means of challenging a project proposal (Cole, 1993; Ramo, 2013). In this way, CEQA is an environmental justice tool because it provides two essential things for communities: a legal avenue for challenging potentially harmful projects, and most importantly it provides a platform for community voice where concerned residents can speak their opinions, meet with decision-makers directly, and receive answers to their questions (Cole, 1993). This aspect of including the community voice is noted as more important than CEQA being used as a legal tool because when lawyers go to court, community voices do not follow, which then omits one of the founding Environmental Justice Principles of “we speak for ourselves.” At its best, CEQA can open a dialog between government officials, private corporations, and residents (Brostrom et al, 2016). Where this ideal falls short, however, is when the government agencies involved interpret the legal requirements in a way that limits the dialog by creating barriers to the platform for community voices to be heard. CEQA requirements are already limited in their ability to provide community input on a project because they are designed to inform and disclose, so any barriers to being included in this already limited public participation process makes the process less meaningful for the public involved. The Role of DTSC and Kings County While CEQA legislation regulates the permitting process for hazardous waste facilities, two government agencies actually approve the permits based on the CEQA process. First, the local jurisdiction and lead agency, in this case Kings County, must approve and accept the EIR at a public meeting open for comments, and then the permit is reviewed by the state agency, the Department of Toxics and Substance Control (DTSC). In 2012, due to the lack of transparency and standardization with permitting, DTSC’s permitting process underwent a review that found 20 ways DTSC could improve its permitting process. These recommendations, conducted by an external consulting company, CPS HR Consulting, highlighted issues within DTSC’s permitting process including the need for DTSC to develop clear criteria for approving, denying, and revoking permits of hazardous facilities (CPS HR Consulting, 2013). Although the review does not provide suggested criteria for permitting, the authors documented a major problem with permitting hazardous waste criteria in California, namely there are none. Since this 2013 report, 60 DTSC developed a Permitting Enhancement Work Plan (DTSC, 2014). This new two-year plan was specifically focused on defining the permitting process, standardizing metrics, enforcement, informing the public, and identifying environmental justice concerns (DTSC, 2014). While DTSC’s plan has yet to be evaluated, the Kettleman Hills Facility was permitted under the old permitting paradigm, which lacked criteria. DTSC’s public notice for the KHF stated their role in the permitting the KHF was to evaluate the facility’s application for completeness, and then determined to prepare or deny a draft permit (DTSC, May 2013). Although the lack of clarification with the permitting process was later acknowledged by DTSC staff (DTSC, 2014), as the lead agency overseeing hazardous waste in California they have a responsibility to ensuring the facilities they permit undergo a fair and transparent process. Since the Kettleman City Facility is located in an unincorporated area of Kings County, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) also has a role in the permitting process. While the planning commission hosts the EIR meetings and facilitates the public participation meetings, the BOS must then approve the conditional use permit (CUP). Once the EIR and CUP are approved and granted, DTSC reviews the permits and approvals and determines whether to grant their state permit. In addition to the county and state permits, the Kettleman Hills Facility requires additional permits from regional government agencies. These regional government agencies include the California Regional Water Control Board- Central Valley Region (RWQCB) and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPC) (DTSC, May 2014). Other Public Participation Opportunities The Tanner Act (1986) In addition to the Board of Supervisors, DTSC, and numerous regional organizations offering public participation opportunities in their permit review, another state law regulating the permitting of hazardous waste includes requirements of public involvement. AB (2948), (here after known as the Tanner Act), was introduced by assembly member Sally Tanner in 1986 to expedite the approval of hazardous waste facilities regarding siting or permitting of new or existing facilities. The goal of the bill was to expedite the process while ensuring the company’s compliance with existing laws, create a means for giving the public a voice in the process, and create a means for appealing local land use decisions. The Tanner Act goes beyond information and disclosures, as it requires the Board of Supervisors (BOS) appoint a seven-person committee known as a Local Assessment Committee (LAC) to represent the community’s interest in the permitting process. The LAC is extremely important to the permitting process because this committee establishes criteria that would make the permit approval acceptable to the community. These criteria then become legally binding requirements for the facility owner, or WM, to comply with in order to receive the permit. The applications of these criteria the committee can establish are really open ended, so they can require the company to provide resources or just about anything that would benefit the community Cole, 1998). While this law should provide additional community voices and representation in the permitting process, the language does not require a diversity of perspectives. It only requires the 61 BOS to create an LAC, and the BOS in Kings County has interpreted these community interests on the LAC generously. Since this act pertains to new and existing facility permits, the Kings County BOS was required to appoint a LAC in both 1988 and 2005, when WM submitted applications for the incinerator and the expansion. In both cases the BOS appointed members either not from Kettleman City, or selected residents from Kettleman who were outspoken pro- WM supporters. In research focused on the efficacy of the LAC in permitting decisions, Cole (1998) interviewed members, and applicants, for the 1988 LAC incinerator. Cole’s interviews reveled why the one Kettleman resident was selected for the LAC stating: Maya, who later became an outspoken opponent of the project, laughed accounting how he was chosen for the LAC. “I told them I was for it (the project) and I was chosen. When they found out I was against it, they couldn’t do a damn thing about it. (Cole, 1998; pg. 743) Maya would be the one Kettleman City resident on the 1988 LAC, and he was also the only Hispanic member representing a predominantly Hispanic community. The lack of Kettleman residents, and the lack of Hispanic members on the LAC became a point of contention with opponents of the incinerator as they then felt the LAC did not reflect them or their interests. To demonstrate their opposition to both the incinerator and LAC makeup, opponents would attend LAC meetings and openly call for the committee’s resignation. Despite their objections to the 1988 LAC, the committee proceeded with determining their recommendations Cole, 1998). Despite community opponent protest, objections, and calls for the LAC’s resignation in both 1988 and 2008, the BOS was procedurally compliant with the Tanner Act in their selection and responded to the concerns of the LAC makeup stating they did not receive applications from many Kettleman residents. One Kettleman resident and organizer responded to this statement with: The County always said we didn’t get any applications, but they also didn’t advertise it. No one knew about it. We had someone on our staff at the time who did apply and she was Latina. She applied as the environmental rep and was denied. (Marina9, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Despite the BOS statements they did not appoint more residents from Kettleman due to the lack of interest, more than one person from the area applied for community and environmental reps. When the LAC was formed in 2005, expansion opponents spoke out against the committee’s lack of Kettleman resident’s representation and the seemingly overrepresentation of Kings County Farm Bureau interests. Even the environmental rep was questioned for her ties to the farm bureau and the lack of information on her organization. A community advocate explained: The environmental interest was the Farm Bureau, which isn’t usually seen as environmental organization. The other one was a weird environmental group no one had ever heard of. There was no website. We asked for contact info and there was none. It was very unclear if that entity even existed. (Ana, 34, community advocate) 9 The names have been changed to protect the interviewee’s privacy. 62 While the organization representing the environmental interest wasn’t directly the farm bureau, the representative did have close ties to the farm bureau. The close ties to the Kings County Farm Bureau were questioned because of the farm bureau’s interest in permitting the expansion of the KFH. Kings County’s economy, being a predominantly rural county, relies on agriculture, dairies, and agribusinesses (Kings County Association of Governments, 2011), and these industries are considered hazardous waste generators because of the pesticide disposal and above or underground storage tanks (CalEPA, 2013). The EPA then regulates some, but not all, pesticide disposal as hazardous waste (USEP Pesticide Disposal Website). The Kings County Farm Bureau would then have a beneficiary interest in the expansion of the KHF as they represent the farming industry in Kings County, which requires the use of hazardous waste disposal facilities. LAC Committee Representatives Looking closer at the backgrounds and organizations of the other LAC members, from both 1988 and 2005, reveals a tight network of interests between members, government officials and the Kings County Farm Bureau. Based on information from a 1996 PhD dissertation, the LAC formed in 1988 for the incinerator included a farmer from Kettleman City, a former member of the Kings County Planning Commission, a retired judge, a former member of the Corcoran city council, a Hanford business man later elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1994, a retired Avenal pharmacy owner, and a community college student who in 1993 became a member of the Kings County Planning Commission (Kennedy, 1996). The majority of this LAC supported the incinerator, all except the farmer from Kettleman, who is referenced above stating his opposition to the incinerator. According to the same dissertation, which interviewed many of the members, the Kettleman resident was encouraged to apply as the community representative. It was also unclear which interest were represented by who as it wasn’t made clear during the process, and one member when interviewed three years after the committee meetings could not recall which interest he represented (Kennedy, 1996). The LAC appointed in 2005 had similar issues with their representation as members had ties to the Kings County Farm Bureau, other boards standing to benefit from the permit approval, hazardous waste connections, or were openly WM supporters. The original seven members shown in Table 7 included Vern Grewal, Aletha Ware, Jackie Douma,Kelly Deming, Jim Verboon, mari Lynn Starrett, and Craig Schmidt (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). Other members were appointed to replace those who had to step down or resign for various reasons, including personal or potential conflicts of interest (Table 8). Community residents opposing the expansion project also opposed the LAC formation from learning about the committee in 2008 (Yashimata, April 17, 2008). They opposed the LAC committee members on the basis of the lack of racial diversity, the lack of diversity in perspectives on the expansion decision, and the seemingly other interest being represented beyond the stated three interests (community, business, and environmental). When the LAC formed in 2005, the chair of the LAC, Jim Verboon, represented one of the two environmental group interests on the committee, but Verboon was also well networked to other LAC members and interests. According to his profile on the Madera County Farm Bureau website, Verboon is a farmer who served on numerous California Farm Bureau committees (Madera County Farm 63 Bureau website), he also served on the Kings County Water Commission for district 3 (Kings County Water Commission website), and as the president of the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment (990s Foundation Center, 2006). This organization had additional representation on the LAC was Kelly Deming, the other environmental group representative, was the secretary of the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment (990s Foundation Center, 2006). The two environmental interests on the LAC were networked prior to the LAC through their shared leadership roles with this other organization, the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment as well as the Education and Agriculture Together (EAT) Foundation (Madera County Farm Bureau; Nidever, 2014). Table 7: The Original Seven LAC Members Appointed in 2005 Years LAC Member Name LAC Interest Represented Other Interests Represented 2005-09 Vern Grewal Community • Former employee of PerkinElmer 2005-09 Aletha Ware, Vice chair Community • Kings County Water commission • Chair, Kettleman City Community Services District 2005- 07 Jackie Douma Community • Unknown 2005-09 Kelly Deming Environmental or Public Interest • Secretary of the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment • Director Kings County Farm Bureau (1988-2003) 2005-09 Jim Verboon, LAC Chair Environmental or Public Interest • Local farmer • Kings County Water Commission for district 5 • Director of the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment • Relative on the BOS 2005-09 Mari Lynn Starrett Business or Industry • Unknown 2005-08 Craig Schmidt Business or Industry • Former PG&E employee The group Kings County Citizens Health & Environment lacks a website and their contact information is difficult to find making it seem as though the group appeared just before the LAC meetings. Despite the lack of public information, news articles show the group formed in 1988 by Alene Taylor during a legal battle between farmers and residents in Kings County against a power plant proposal in Hanford (Nidever, 2007). After the political win against the power plant, Alene Taylor went on to serve two terms (eight years) on the Kings County BOS for district 5 from 1996-2008 (The Hanford Sentinel Editorial, 2014). The difficulty with this environmental group is the lack of transparency with their public information, as well as their relationships to other members, organizations, and political positions. 64 Of the three original community interests (Ware, Douma, and Grewal), only two remained on the committee through 2009 (Table 8). Douma’s seat was vacated in 2007 and an extensive Internet search returned no information on her or why she left the committee. Ware and Grewal remained as community representatives, and while Ware was an outspoken supporter for Chem Waste, Grewal’s former employer was a generator of hazardous waste (Yamashita, 2008) calling into question the ability of either of them to be objective in their recommendations. Ware has been a long time resident of Kettleman City, moving there in 1968 (Yamashita, 2008), she has been active throughout the community including serving on as the chair of the Kettleman City Community Services District (KCCSD). This organization has sent letters of support, signed by Ware, for the permit approval of the KHF. In one letter dated September 25, 2013, Ware addressed the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in support of the expansion permit. Ware cited Waste Management long time assistance to the KCCSD and considers them an “outstanding corporate citizen and a strong supporter.” Ware noted Waste Management’s contributions to the community, including providing $50,000 for drinking water, their employment of dozens of people, and the company contributions through charity, taxes, and payroll (Ware, 2013). Of the seven original LAC members, two were replaced and these two were then again replaced more than once (Table 8). Ceil How Jr replaced Douma as the community representative, and was later replaced by David Block in 2008. Ceil Howe Jr operates Westlake Farming, one of the largest farms in the west that in 2001 owned more than 60,000 acres in the Tulare Lake Basin (Cline, 2001). As of 2016, Howe’s farms are down to about 25,000 acres of farmland and farms just 4,000 acres of it, as he has sold or leased land to a solar power company and 15,000 acres to the Los Angeles sanitation district (Lindt, 2016). This sale or lease to the Los Angeles sanitation district was controversial at best as in 2005 the district built a plant on the Westlake farmland to process 500,000 tons annually of treated sewage to be used as fertilizer (Nidever, 2005). This fertilizer is used throughout the county on agriculture and is a practice the Howe family had employed for a while. In 2001, Howe landed in court after he illegally seized land from nearby farm owners to build a pond to store fertilizer sludge. To build these ponds, Howe took 21 acres of his neighbor’s farmland and built a 740-acre drainage pond (Arax, 1999). Being one of the largest farm families in the area, but not a resident of Kettleman City caused speculation of Howe representing the community interest on the LAC. In 2008 Howe switched interests on the LAC from community to business, but the reason given was to allow someone else fill the vacant LAC seat. The BOS stated they could not fill the vacancy left by Schmidt in business, so they moved Howe to business to open up community reasoning more people could apply for that seat (Yamashita, May 19 2008). Howe continued to serve on the LAC as a business representative until 2009 when Alvaro Preciado replaced him (Table 8). During the January 8, 2009 LAC meeting, Preciado was introduced as the newest member (LAC Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2009). One month before this announcement, however, Preciado participated in a community protest against the LAC formation in Kettleman City. At the protest Preciado spoke out against the LAC and stated he too had received little notice of the public meeting in Kettleman City (Yamashita, Dec 8 2008). After joining the LAC Preciado, an Avenal resident and then wastewater treatment employee (Yasmashita, March 10 2009) did not protest the committee, and during the end of the permitting process Preceiado was elected to the Avenal city council (Eiman, 2014) and later as the mayor 65 pro tem of Avenal (City of Avenal website). The other business and industry interest was represented by Avenal resident Mari Lynn Sterrette, of which no public information was available, despite a thorough Internet search. Again the lack of public information available for someone who is supposedly representing the public, and a business industry should not be allowed. The legal requirements of the LAC however, do not require members to make themselves publically available or discuss their interests publically. Despite this limitation with the LAC requirements, there are only seven people selected to represent the entire impacted community, and these seven people should be more publically visible so those who cannot have a voice in the process understand which voices and perspectives are being heard. In July 2008, David Block filled Howe’s other LAC position as community interests (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). Block was a retired environmental scientist from Merced County Environmental Health division who worked on underground gas tanks (Merced County Department of Public Works). Due to the potential for leaks or leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), the EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board regulates them, and in some cases as hazardous waste (State Water Resources Control Board). Block, a Hanford resident, is another member living outside of the most impacted area of Kettleman City. Having residents from Kettleman City represent the community interest was a main objection of LAC opponents, but the BOS selected only one Kettleman resident and she was an outspoken supporter of the landfill. The additional community representatives were not from the most impacted community of Kettleman City, and their connections to working in industries handling or producing hazardous waste seem like obvious areas for conflict of interest. While their industries were not being represented, having only pro-WM or pro-hazardous waste representatives cannot balance the opinions and perspectives of the LAC committee (Table 9). Table 8: LAC Members and their replacements 2005-2009 LAC Interest Represented LAC member name: time on LAC Replaced by: Time on LAC Replaced by: Time on LAC Community Vern Grewal: 2005-2009 Aletha Ware: 2005-2009 Jackie Douma: 2005- October 2007 Ceil Howe Jr :Feb 2008-May 2008 David Block: July 2008-2009 Environment Kelly Deming: 2005-2009 Jim Verboon: 2005-2009 Business & Industry Mari Lynn Starrett: 2005- 2009 Craig Schmidt: 2005-2009 Ceil Howe Jr: May 2008-July 2008 Alvaro Preciado: Jan 2009-2009 (Source: LAC Final Recommendations, 2009) 66 Table 9: Final LAC Members, interests, and affiliations (2009) LAC Years Member LAC Interest Other Affiliated Interests 2005- 2009 Jim Verboon, Chair Environmental • Kings County Water Commission for district 5 • President of the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment • Member of E.A.T foundation 2005- 2009 Kelly Deming Environmental • Secretary of the Kings County Citizens Health & Environment • Member of E.A.T foundation 2005- 2009 Aletha Ware Community • Chair, Kettleman City Community Services District 2005- 2009 Vern Grewal Community • Former employee of PerkinElmer (generator of hazardous waste) 2005- 2009 Mari Lynn Sterrette Business & industry • Unknown 2008- 2009 David Block Community • Retired environmental scientist from Merced County Environmental Health division 2009 Alavaro Presciado Business & industry • Elected to Avenal City Council The Kings County Board of Supervisors, Kings County Farm Bureau and Waste Management The clear potential for conflict of interest between LAC members and the approval of the expansion permit became a contentious issue for Kettleman City expansion opponents (Yamashita, April 17 2008). In addition to community concerns of the LAC accurately representing Kettleman City interests, residents were also concerned with the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and their close ties to the Kings County Farm Bureau, an organization that supports Waste Management. Although an elected board, the Board of Supervisors have all been endorsed by, received campaign money from, or are otherwise connected to the Kings County Farm Bureau (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2014). The Board of Supervisors’ support for Waste Management has been shown through individual members praising the company for the services, but also through the unanimous support for the projects, sometimes in legally questionable ways. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) did not hold a public hearing and called a vote on the incinerator permit before a new board could come into place. According to a 1989 Los Angeles Times article, one member of the board, Les Brown, had been voted out and before he could step down the board called a vote where the incinerator permit passed unanimously. The supervisor replacing Brown in 1990, James Edwards, would potentially oppose the incinerator project (Corwin, 1991). Edwards only served one term on the board and was replaced by a Kings County Farm Bureau backed candidate, Joe Neves, who in 2016 served on the board (Kings County Board of Supervisors, 2016). After leaving the board, Brown took a position with a lobby firm in Sacramento specializing in hazardous waste issues (Corwin, 1991). 67 The close network of the BOS, the Kings County Farm Bureau (KCFB) and Waste Management is a concern for residents because the KCFB and WM are wealthy organizations that stand to either gain or lose with the expansion approval. In 2014, agriculture in Kings County was valued at $2.47 billion dollars, a 9% increase from 2013 (Lurie, 2015). Farms and dairies, both represented by the KCFB, rely on the KHF for waste disposal, especially pesticides that require special disposal treatment. The location of the KHF is then ideal for the large agriculture businesses in Kings County, and is an incentive for permitting of the facility’s expansion. In the May 2012 issue of the Kings County Farm Bureau (KCFB) Update, author Amy Fienen published an article siting Waste Management’s positive contributions to the Kings County economy siting the need for the expansion. The article stated the project will bring jobs to the community and the $50,000 donation from WM to the Kings Community Action Organization (KCAO) will help them secure a state grant for future services, further investing in the local community (Fienan, 2012). The article was published under the “Business Spotlight” section that said, “Business Spotlight features KCFB’s Business Support Members,” which the August 2012 edition list Waste Management as one of the Farm Bureau’s financial supporters (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2012). Under the directory of donors, it encouraged readers to support their supporters by stating, “The businesses individuals, and organizations on this page are showing their support of the agriculture industry and, in particular, Kings County Farm Bureau. Please show your appreciation by supporting them in return” (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2012, pp. 13). Another member listed in 2012 as a member of the Kings County Farm Bureau was the Kings County Water District (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2012). The Kings County Water District will gain from the permit approval because through the LAC recommendations Waste Management agreed to pay off Kettleman City’s debt to the Water District, about $500k, but only if they receive the county permit (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). The Farm Bureau received money from WM, and they also published articles in their local news in favor of WM. In the January 2013 edition of the Kings County Farm Bureau (KCFB) Update, an article titled “Waste management Addresses Spill Violations” discussed the recent violations at the KHF stating that “while DTSC has found these violations, they do not tell whole story” (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2013, pp. 4). The article is dedicated to Waste Management’s perspective on the spill violations that “DTSC is not alleging that the spills are violations. Rather, the alleged violations are about reporting protocols for small spills that occur at our facility” (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2013, pp. 4). Waste Management did not believe they needed to report the spills and they “disagree with DTSC’s interpretation of our permit, but are currently working to resolve the disagreement” (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2013, pp. 4). The article concludes by urging readers of the KCFB update to get the facts on Waste Management’s operations (Kings County Farm Bureau, 2013). The printing of articles from only the perspective of WM that encourage support for the company shows the farm bureaus’ support for the company. These committee selections demonstrate how this additional opportunity for committee representation is beholden to the Board of Supervisors and their interest approving or denying the landfill permit. One challenge here is that because Kings County is a rural county, and Kettleman has such a small population, the BOS could easily justify their selections from outside the Kettleman area, even though Kettleman would be the area impacted most from the 68 incinerator or expansion project. Although the Tanner Act has the potential to generate meaningful community involvement from diverse perspectives that could lead to better outcomes, the local government’s selection of members tightly networked to each other, the powerful agriculture lobby, and government members themselves, shows the lack of consideration for having meaningful public involvement in the process. Another challenge for opponents is that although opponents to the expansion called the LAC process “illegal” (Yamashita, Dec 8 2008), the process itself was legally compliant as it adhered to the legal requirements in committee formation, public noticing, and holding meetings. Despite being legally compliant, it was the way in which these legal requirements were carried out that led to opponent’s frustration. In 2008, the newspaper The Hanford Sentinel hosted a space for LAC and community leaders to come together and discuss their concerns. The Sentinel authors stated they felt the meeting was productive, and in the end while the county followed the law with the LAC, “…we feel it did not follow the intent of the law. There are no Latinos represented on the board and the only local resident of Kettleman City is an outspoken advocate for Chem Waste, who also has directly benefited from the company” (Hanford Sentinel, 2008). This meeting, as well as the LAC meetings show that the issue was not the LAC doing anything illegal, which would be a much easier problem to address, but the problem was that the BOS had the power to form a committee that had a unified perspective that supported the permit approval, and the LAC had the power to host meetings at times and locations without considering what would best encourage public participation. In this way, a process that should have supplied additional opportunities for public input and a diversity of perspectives reflective of the community most impacted by the permit was lost to the political power of the BOS and political economic network of politics, farming, and other financially lucrative Kings County industries. LAC Impact on final recommendations The importance of the committee selection is demonstrated through their final recommendations. While again, their role was not to approve or weigh-in on the approval of the permit, they were tasked with achieving consensus on what community benefits WM should provide specifically to Kettleman City. Since the benefits being determined were directly for the benefit of Kettleman City residents, it would have made sense to have more Kettleman City representation on the committee to inform WM on what they need. Instead of Kettleman residents having an opportunity to speak for themselves with a vote on what they need and want in their community, the BOS selected non-Kettleman residents to decide what they needed. Although Kettleman residents were encouraged to participate in the meetings, the final recommendations make clear the intention of the committee (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). The process for achieving consensus included the LAC member’s suggestion and negotiations with WM, and while public meetings were held to encourage public input, the finalizing of recommendations was up to the LAC. As news articles and the Final LAC recommendations show, the LAC process was with much opposition (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). Throughout the 23 meetings held, opponents wrote letters and protested the LAC meetings calling for the committee’s resignation (Yamashita, April 17, 2008; Yamashita, Dec 8, 2008) and later denounced the recommendations (Yamashita, April 29 2009). 69 These recommendations are the product of committee representation that did not adequately represent the committee, and having more Kettleman City residents or opponents of the expansion project may have produced a different set of recommendations. Opponents to the LAC committee, the process, and recommendations were not passive bystanders in this additional opportunity for public participation, as they applied for seats, opposed the committee, and attended meetings. Despite their best attempts, they were continually met with challenges to their meaningful inclusion in this process that are disused in chapter 4. These challenges included the BOS selecting LAC members that did not accurately reflect Kettleman City residents or a diversity of perspectives regarding the landfill approval. Instead of being an opportunity to engage with the permitting process, the LAC was a group tightly networked with one another and the Kings County Farm Bureau. The interest represented by these members other than their LAC appointed interest are then clear in the final set of recommendations CEQA Limitations & Community Definitions of Meaningful Public Participation The challenges to being meaningfully included in the process extend from the LAC and representation to the limited access of information, accessible meetings, and government accountability. While CEQA requires public input opportunities through public comments and encouraging public scoping meetings, there is no legal definition for meaningful public participation. This lack of definition leaves the process open to interpretation by the lead agency conducting the CEQA process as they are only required to meet the minimum standards for informing and disclosing through hosting meetings, noticing, and responding to comments, but they are not required to take action on comments or concerns. Although designed as a tool for community involvement in the EIR process, many Kettleman and Kings County residents involved with the past EIR public participation meetings do not believe the CEQA procedures included them in a meaningful way. Two longtime community organizers involved with Kings County EIR meetings in 1990 and 2009 described the experience of participating in the CEQA procedures as: The decisions are always swayed toward industry, the polluter; they are not swayed toward the people. I think that makes people question the validity of public participation as a whole. A lot of times it seems like it’s just a checklist they check off. We had this meeting. Check. We translated this. Check. It’s the minimal what they do because they aren’t actually listening to the people. (Ana, 34, community advocate) They're giving you these looks like, Yeah, yeah, whatever. Yeah, whatever. Because, to be honest with you, mostly all the time it's like they already have made a decision, and they're going through the motions. They'll let you get up there and rant and rave and do whatever, but the bottom line is they've already decided how they're going to vote. They don't really keep an open mind about what you're saying. Body language is amazing. You can tell when somebody is listening to you or somebody is doodling. (Alejandro, 52, community organizer) 70 Here the focus on the lack of listening shows the participants felt the process was not meaningful for them as they were not heard in the meetings. The issue here is the Kings County Board of Supervisors is not legally required to respond to public input at these meetings, and simple or no acknowledgement of the commenter is sufficient for the process. Without this response from the government though, comments and meeting attendees believe they are not being heard and their participation is not meaningful. When asked how they define “meaningful public participation,” residents responded with definitions that focused on inclusive procedures, such as translations, locations, and times, but each of the respondents also included listening or a form of accountability. Kettleman City residents, organizers, and advocates defined meaningful public participation as: To me, public participation would be that everybody that's at that meeting has equal time to say what they want to say, and to do that in a language that they best speak or understand. That the people at the other side of the table actually ask a question of everybody that comes up there to speak. (Mona, 67, community advocate) Meaningful means we are having a give and take. You share your ideas and suggestions and I give you mine. We are communicating on a regular basis with one another from the very offset of the plan, to the end. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) I think meaningful public participation would come from actually taking into account people’s wants and needs about what goes on in the place where they live. Not what some computer model in Sacramento is saying it’s OK. It’s actually talking to the people and taking into account their right to say what they want to live near or what their community can put up with. (Raimi, 32, organizer) From these residents and organizers comes a definition of meaningful public participation that includes listening through responding or accountability, as well as discussions and collaborations on projects. This accountability is defined as the government or lead agency responding to comments and acknowledging community concerns, not only through verbal acknowledgement, but also by integrating public comments into the decision. Together accountability with collaborative process could encourage shared power in the process. This element of shared power is seen through the desire to be at the table together with decision-makers, and the ability for them to hear what people want to live near and live with. Also visible here is sense of frustration with government officials not collaborating on projects, allowing time to speak, or taking into account concerns. Another challenge with CEQA and public participation is that while CEQA requires opportunities for public comments at meetings, it does not require a response from government officials. Those involved with the meetings can voice their concerns, present evidence or testimony, or ask for a response without being legally entitled to a reply. Even when a response is required, it is only that, a response that is required, so when the lead agency, Kings County, is required to respond to written public comments on the EIR, they are not required to act on these comments. Although the Kings County Planning Commission and DTSC replied to all of the written comments they received on the EIR, those opposing the incinerator and expansion project 71 did not feel the government was responsive to their concerns. When asked if they felt the government was responsive to the community, organizers and residents replied: Of course not. They are in bed with Chem Waste. Always have been, always will be. (Charles, 46, community organizer) No. I think there was a really bad attitude with them. I think they feel like the people that live out here are expendable. I heard the BOS representative for our area at that time of the incinerator, he just passed away last week so I won’t speak ill of him, but I remember at that time asking him, well you know that tax revenue generated from the landfill, where does it go? How do we see it back? How do we benefit? And he says, oh you people benefit from it with your food stamps, your medical, and your WIC. I remember thinking, whoa. I’m not getting my part because I don’t get that stuff. That is the mentality that we will take care of you with social services and you just shut up and take it. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) The thing is- you know, we are not, we are not in the fifties anymore and the segregation created like a government isn’t making people drink out of different faucets. They do their fighting a lot trickier nowadays, you know? When we go to meetings, we scream at them, we scream at them. They stay quiet now instead of answering back, you know? That’s the thing, is like, things like that and they’ve learned. They’ve been learning as much as we have about how to defend themselves, and it seems like while we win so many battles but there are so many things that are the same as America in the 1930s in terms of the way they make their decisions. It’s just a bunch of people that don’t live anywhere close to the situation, don’t really have anything to do with it, deciding for a bunch of people. (Leo, 22, Kettleman City resident) While the government has been compliant with public participation laws, they can hold meetings and respond to comments without being accountable to take action. Residents and organizers opposing the expansion believe the government officials are not responsive to them because they have few resources or political power, and they believe the government is incentivized to approve the permits for tax revenue, and that Kettleman residents will benefit from these taxes in the form of social services. They also see the government agencies making decisions for places where they do not live, and are therefore not invested in the outcomes. Being an unincorporated rural area, residents who disagree with these decisions have limited opportunities for electing officials that would be more responsive to them. Information & Access to Meetings Community residents face challenges to being heard at meetings, and feeling meaningfully involved with the process once there, but they also face challenges to receiving information on the meetings and then accessing the meetings themselves. In both 1991 and 2009 information and access to meetings has been a challenge, and while some aspects of these challenges are the same, new ones have developed. During the incinerator proposal many Kettleman City residents were unaware there was an incinerator proposed four miles from their homes, and some were unaware of the existence of the landfill. Public noticing has always been 72 an issue for Kettleman City because the CEQA noticing for projects requires public notices placed at the project site, in public spaces, such as government buildings, and in newspapers. For rural places like Kettleman, posting a notice on the site is four miles away, across a major interstate highway that people are not likely to pass by and notice is a barrier to information. Notices posted in the library are not a guarantee either that people will see them, but the limited number of public places in rural areas makes the library the best location. Newspaper notices usually went into the English printed Hanford Sentinel justified by the fact it is the most read newspaper in Kings County, but many people in Kettleman are Spanish-only speakers or English is their second language. When asked about his concerns with accessing information on projects, one organizer replied: For instance, too, another thing that we noticed out here is, sometimes when they put these notices they'll put them in English-speaking paper, but they won't put them in Spanish speaking paper. Another thing is the Spanish speaking papers only come out once a week. Where the English come out every day. When you're dealing with Spanish speaking people the best place to put it is on television or the radio. Television and radio versus the newspaper. There are a lot of issues that come to play in how the access actually comes to be. (Alejandro, 52, organizer) Placing a notice only in the English newspapers is a concern when the majority of the community communicates better in Spanish. There are other options for informing people that include television or the Spanish newspapers, but the legal requirements only call for a public notice in a newspaper, and do not specify it has to be in the language of the majority of the community. These noticing issues made getting information to people on projects and meetings a challenge, and these difficulties are compounded with issues on the government side sending out notices in a timely manner. One government employee recalled the noticing process: At this time (2013) in Kettleman we were having a lot of glitches (around public participation) that were requiring us to re-notice public participation events. We saw we were having a lot of breakdown with the manual process for noticing. (Mark, 46, state government official) This employee was aware of the issues on the government’s side getting the information out to people as there were issues with the noticing of the period for comments after the DTSC permits were approved in 2014. In 2013 the meetings had to be re-noticed and the comment period extended twice due to noticing failures (Grossi, October 14 2013). If people are unaware of the meetings, or confused by conflicting notices they are not likely to attend meetings, which leaves the impression they are not concerned with the project. Even when people were able to learn about the meetings, they were always held in Hanford, about 35 miles away from Kettleman City, in the afternoon and the evening. The planning commission and BOS host these meetings in Hanford because it is the largest city in the county and the county seat, but the distance to Hanford from Kettleman is a challenge for 73 residents, especially when public transpiration is limited. At the 2009 planning commission meeting, one Kettleman resident who attended the meeting recalled: People got to testify, but if the hearing isn’t in the community and they have to travel, they can’t stay that long. A lot of people, like what happened in 2009, some people got to speak, some didn’t. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) The distance between Kettleman City and Hanford was an issue for people who wanted to attend the entire meeting, but so was the timing of the meeting. One planning commission meeting was held on a weekday at 2pm, which was near impossible for those employed during the day, but the evening meetings are equally challenging. A Kettleman City community organizer explained: There is no public transportation at night, so even if they were at night, but most of the time they were in the middle of the day, its 40 miles away. People here are farm workers. They aren’t going to take off a day to go to a meeting. It just doesn’t happen. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Hosting meetings during the afternoon hours made attendance difficult for residents employed during the day. Many of the Kettleman residents work in agriculture, which requires long hours starting early in the morning, so long meetings that start in the evening and are a 40-minute drive away cannot accommodate these residents. A resident and organizer involved with the incinerator project recalled: There’s people that get out at 2am to get to work and don’t get home until late at night. So they didn’t have time to participate. They couldn’t go to the meetings that were done over in Hanford. That’s another thing we protested. They had to come over here and do their meetings. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Although the organizers requested these meetings be moved to Kettleman City the planning commission and BOS continued to hold meetings in Hanford. This was as much a challenge for people opposing the incinerator in 1990 as those opposing the expansion project in 2009. Police Presence and Intimidation Both Planning Commission permitting approval meetings were held at a building at the Kings County fairgrounds near Hanford. Despite the Planning Commission using the same building for hosting meetings in 1990 and 2009, many participants in the 2009 meeting expressed unfamiliarity with the building and location. In addition to its being an unfamiliar building, participants at the meeting in 2009 were met with a heavy police presence. While not usual practice to have a canine unit at EIR meetings, one community organizer shared, “I asked one of the cops why are you putting a canine unit and he said to send a message to you activists. It worked” (Interview, 2015). There had never been violence towards the government agents or anyone at any of these public meetings before this one, so the county did not justify the heavy presence of police and canines. Community members and others in opposition to the expansion 74 project felt the only reason to have police and dogs were to intimidate people. One community advocate stated: I had never been to a hearing like that before. It was the most intimidated I have ever felt as an attorney. I am an American citizen, I am White, I speak English, and I remember going into the meeting there was already problems with I think Chem Waste hired a translator. People immediately started asking questions of why didn’t the county provide it? Chem Waste is translating testimony for the county and there were questions asked so hostilities rose immediately. (Diana, 31, community advocate) During this same meeting, the police knocked Ramone, an elderly man, to the ground for demanding the county translate his testimony, and that he would receive the full time allotted to English speaking commenters. When the meeting began, the county announced English-speaking commenters would receive five minutes for their comment, but Spanish speakers would receive two and a half minutes, to account for the additional two and a half needed to translate their comment. As the man refused to take his seat, the police pulled him out of the meeting. A Kettleman resident present at the meeting remembered: They jumped Ramone, about eight cops, and dragged him out. He was kicked out for demanding equality. It was intimidating. Some Waste Management workers were making racist comments. It was ugly. It was at the next hearing that they parked a canine squad on the steps of the hearing. (Dana, 39, Kettleman City resident) The removal of Ramone occurred early on at the start of the meeting and set the tone for the rest of the time. People were intimated to be there, and that intimidation carried on throughout the meeting. One woman stated: I started walking toward the car and the policemen were with their guns out and I said what are you doing? I only have my cane. You think I am going to shoot you with my cane? I was so upset. I got in the car and we left. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) While intimidation was not the reason this community member left, she was angry and upset by the police presence to the point she wanted to leave and did not give public comment in opposition to the expansion project. At a the BOS meeting in December 2009, held this time at a Hanford county government building, the police and dogs were also present. Here a civil rights lawyer who attended the planning commission meeting at the fairgrounds in 2009 and the one at the county building remembered: We made it known that we don’t want that police presence, but they were there. They had police dogs. The entrance of the hall there were police dogs tied up that you had to walk past to get into the meeting. I had never seen that before…police dogs?! We had more numbers, so it felt safer. One problem with the first one was we were outnumbered and I 75 felt unsafe. It was hostile. People were laughing and taunting, like when the guy was kicked out everyone was clapping. (Diana, 31, community advocate) After the first meeting at the fairgrounds with the police and canine units, community residents, organizers, and lawyers told the Kings County government they did not want to attend more public meetings for comments with the heavy police and canines. Despite their requests for accessible meetings without police and dogs, and despite there never being a need for police and dogs, the county again had them at the meeting in Hanford. Language & Translations In addition to the police, the lack of availability for translations made the meeting inaccessible for many Spanish speakers. At the meeting in 1990 and again in 2009, the Kings County government lacked translation services or they were provided in a way that disadvantages community residents in need of this service. During the incinerator meetings the translation services were not adequate for Spanish speakers to fully participate. One Spanish and English speaking resident at the incinerator meeting recalled: They weren’t translating documents or having translators there, or when they were there they weren’t translating well. A lot of it is technical words people don’t use on a every day basis. One meeting, I was like 17, they were saying, they were talking about when the incinerator would be in operation there would be a percentage, tonnage, of toxic dust, toxic ash emitted daily and the translator translated “toxic ash” into “a slight smell in the air.” I sit up and I say, no, that’s not what they said! They said ash, and that is different from a smell. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Even when translations were provided at the meetings, they were not always accurate translations of what was being discussed, which disadvantaged Spanish speakers from participating fully. At the final EIR meeting in 1990 Spanish speakers were asked to go to the back of the room for translation services. The idea of participating in the meeting from the back of the room did not sit well with community members, as one community member turned- organizer remembered: We asked for translation and they sent us to the back of the room and I said, no, we aren’t going to the back of the room. We are going to the front and you are going to give us translation there. We went to the front and they gave translation. It was the planning commission (meeting) they weren’t translating to them! They had to listen to the testimony. We waited and waited and it was 1am and people had to work at 6am and we got up and said this is an unfair meeting. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Community residents were fully committed to participating, even if it meant fighting to be included in the process and remaining at the meetings late to be able to comment. Community organizing efforts and the incinerator lawsuit both helped residents overturn the incinerator 76 permit that was approved by a process that did not meaningfully include them by limiting their access to the procedures. While the intention of CEQA public participation is to inform and disclose, even these limited legal requirements become difficult when carried out in a way that makes accessing meetings difficult for project opponents, or anyone requiring translations. What this shows then is not only CEQA’s limited ability to fulfill its public participation requirements, but that the lead agency merely holding a public meeting, whether it actually informs the public or not, can be considered legal compliance with CEQA. This also shows that even when a community, or a group of opponents is fully committed to being involved in the process, the lead agency can meet the legal requirements and still create barriers for their participation. In this way, not only does legal compliance with public participation not always equate to meaningful participation, but a lead agency can be legally compliant with the procedures and the process itself can create barriers to public engagement. The process becomes the challenge when it creates barriers to meaningful participation through inconvenient or inaccessible meeting locations, times, inadequate public noticing, limited or lack of translations, a heavy police presence at meetings and police intimidation, limited community representation on committees involved with decisions. Together or individually these challenges create structural barriers to public participation, so while although legally compliant, the process does not always lead to meaningful participation. Conclusion This chapter demonstrated how even when carried out fully and legally, CEQA requirements for public participation do not necessarily meaningfully include the public. This lack of meaningful participation occurs not only because the requirements are opportunities for comments, but because it assumes equality to start. Even if the process were to change to accommodate differences with translations and accessible meetings, the structure of the meetings ensures the public is never granted power to directly sway or influence the decision. The participation tools made available to them are public comments, which at meetings do not even require a response. This lack of a required response at meetings is also a lack of accountability from the government as those making a decision can act despite opposition and this allows the government agencies to carry out a process that is legally compliant despite presenting barriers for meaningful public participation. Although, CEQA requires public participation in the permitting process and the Tanner Act includes additional participation requirements for permitting hazardous waste, Kettleman City residents opposing the landfill expansion and the incinerator projects felt the process was not meaningful for them. Additional requirements that expand participation opportunities and the role of public involvement with the permitting process through public meetings and community representation on committees should have created more meaningful public participation. Here an analysis of the interviewees’ experiences, along with public meeting minutes, newspaper articles, and other public documents show the challenges community residents faced in being meaningfully included in the public participation process. There challenges opponents faced, however, are both symptoms of an ineffective system to meaningfully include the public, but 77 also represent the government’s ability to enforce or construct barriers to meaningful participation. In this case the Kings County Board of Supervisors selected an LAC that lacked a diversity of opinions and was tightly politically networked, which then set meeting times and locations without having to consider engaging the public. Additionally, the Kings County Community Development Agency and Board of Supervisors held their meetings in a similar fashion, but they also chose to have police present at the meetings, which was intimidating to the most seasoned of lawyers, let alone would be to people new to engaging with the political process. These challenges presented then are in some ways limitations of the procedures, but also with the local government’s interpretations of carrying out these procedures. Instead of encouraging or supporting meaningfully public participation, the government can use the participation process to support a decision. This was evident with the government actions that could be seen or legally explained as safety measures, but discouraged public participation. Holding a meeting at the fairgrounds with police present was justified as necessary to accommodate the number of people and provide their safety, but the reality was creating an intimidating environment for opponents to participate. This is also evident because even when people are informed and able to access public meetings, at best their role is passive in being informed on what the government has already decided. The procedures themselves are limited in allowing meaningful public participation, but the local government can use these limitations to support their decisions because being compliant with the laws renders challenging the decision or process difficult. Chapter 3 References 990s Foundation Center. (2006, November 20). Kings County Citizens Health & Environment Short Form Tax Information. Foundation Center. Retrieved from http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/770/770201788/770201788_200512_990EO.p df Aletha, W. (2013, September 25). Kettleman City Community Services District. Arax, M. (1999, February 21). Toxic Pond Pits Little Guys vs. Farming Giant. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/21/news/mn-10311 Barbour, E., & Teitz, M. B. (2005). CEQA reform: Issues and options. Public Policy Institute of California San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://166.78.142.23/content/pubs/op/OP_405EBOP Brostrom, I., Mataka, A., Lin, R., & Vanderwarker, A. (2016, March). Environmental Justice Panel. Presented at the Another Reason We Can’t Breathe: Using Law and Policy to Address Racial and Economic Disparities in Environmental Health, Oakland, CA. CalEPA. (2013, March 19). Unified Program Guidance Letter 13-04 Regulatory Exemptions for Agriculture Handlers under the Unified Program. Retrieved from http://www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Bulletins/2013/March19 California Natural Resources Agency. (2016). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines. Retrieved from http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines Cerrell Associates. (1984). Political Difficulties Facing Waste-to-Energy Conversion Plant Siting. 78 City of Avenal. (2016). Mayor and City Council. Retrieved from http://www.cityofavenal.com/164/City-Council Cline, H. (2001, July 5). It’s a matter of survival for Westlake Farms. Western Farm Press. Fresno, CA. Retrieved from http://westernfarmpress.com/its-matter-survival-westlake-farms Cole, B. L., Wilhelm, M., Long, P. V., Fielding, J. E., Kominski, G., & Morgenstern, H. (2004). Prospects for Health Impact Assessment in the United States: New and Improved Environmental Impact Assessment or Something Different? Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 29(6), 1153–1186. Cole, L. (1994). Environmental Justice Litigation: Another stone in David’s sling. Fordham Urb. LJ, 21, 523–545. _____. (1994b). Struggle of Kettleman City: Lessons for the Movement, The. Md. J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 5, 67. _____. (1995). Legal Services, Public Participation, and Environmental Justice. Clearinghouse Review, 29, 449. _____. (1998). Theory and Reality of Community-Based Environmental Decisionmaking: The Failure of California’s Tanner Act and Its Implications for Environmental Justice, The. Ecology LQ, 25, 733. Corwin, M. (1991, February 24). Unusual Allies Fight Waste Incinerator : Hazards: Grower and farm workers, fearing pollution and health problems, oppose plan to put state’s first such commercial plant in Kings County. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02- 24/news/mn-2788_1_chemical-waste CPS HR Consulting. (2013). Department of Toxic Substance Control Permitting Process Review and Analysis. Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) Consulting. Retrieved from http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/DTSCPermitReviewProcessFinalReport Cutter, S. L. (2012). Hazards Vulnerability and Environmental Justice. Routledge. DTSC. (1998, May). Fact Sheet The Public’s Role During the Permit Process. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/publics_role_in_permit_process _____. (1998b, September). Fact Sheet Hazardous Waste Facility Permitting. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/hazwaste_facility_permits _____. (2013, May). Public Notice DTSC Receives Permit Renewal Application for the Kettleman Hills Facility, 3521 Old Skyline Road, Kettleman City, California. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman_PN_PermitRenewalApplic ation_0513 _____. (2014). 2 Year Plan. Permitting Enhancement Work Plan. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/upload/Permitting_Enhancement_Workplan _____. (2014b, May 21). Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Final-Permit- English Eiman, M. (2014, August 11). City council races take shape. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/lemoore/city-council-races-take- shape/article_72fa789b-2f63-564e-84a0-656306f72132.html 79 Epstein, S. S., Brown, L. O., & Pope, C. (1982). Hazardous waste in America. Sierra Club Books. Fienen, A. (2012, May). Waste Management Kettleman Hills: Contributing to Kings County Economy. Kings County Farm Bureau Update, pp. 5–6. Forester, J. (2006). Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447–456. http://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976765 GAO. (1983). Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills And Their Correlation With Racial And Economic Status Of Surrounding Communities (No. GAO/RCED-83-168). United States General Accounting Office. Geoghegan, J. (2002). The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy, 19(1), 91– 98. Grossi, M. (2013, October 14). Kettleman landfill comment deadline extende again. The Fresno Bee. Fresno, CA. Retrieved from http://news.fresnobeehive.com/archives/tag/kettleman-city Hanford Sentinel. (2008, December 3). Sentinel Analysis: How can toxic waste find a home in Kings County? The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/sentinel-analysis-how-can-toxic-waste-find-a-home- in/article_2c3cb4ee-975e-58b4-a522-15b9381da10a.html Henry, B. (2009, March 5). Waste Management letter to the Kings County Local Assessment Committee. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. http://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170 Kennedy, K. (1996). Local Negotiations in Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permitting: A Comparison of Economic and Communication Models in Four Case Studies. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Kings County Association of Governments. (2011, June). Kings County Blueprint Summary Document. Retrieved from http://www.kingscog.org/assets/KCAG_Blueprint_Document Kings County Board of Supervisors. (2016). Kings County: Joe Neves. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://www.countyofkings.com/about-us/board-of-supervisors/joe-neves Kings County Farm Bureau. (2012, August). Directory of Farm Bureau Supporting Business Members. Kings County Farm Bureau Update, p. 13. _____. (2013, January). Waste Management addresses spill violations. Kings County Farm Bureau Update, p. 4. _____. (2014, May 5). Kings County Farm Bureau endorses in local candidate races | Kings County Farm Bureau. Retrieved from http://kcfb.org/2014/05/kings-county-farm-bureau-endorses-in- local-candidate-races/ Kuhn, S. (1998). Expanding Public Participation Is Essential to Environmental Justice and the Democratic Decisionmaking Process. Ecology Law Quarterly, 25, 647. LAC Meeting Minutes (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3490. 17 April. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3408. 8 May _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3404. 22 May. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3406. 29 May. 80 _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3410. 10 July. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3412. 14 August. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3414. 11 September. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3394. 20 October. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3400. 13 November. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3402. 11 December. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3446. December 20. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3368. 8 January. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3488. 29 January. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3370. 5 February. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3372. 26 February. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3476. 5 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3478. 12 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3374. 19 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3362. 9 April. Lindt, J. (2016, April 20). Taking the pulse of Kings County. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/taking-the-pulse-of-kings- county/article_a51d7344-67ed-5511-a125-f711d3c76bea.html Lurie, G. (2015, June 17). Kings County reports record $2.47 billion in 2014 ag production. The Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/agriculture/18129- kings-county-reports-record-2-47-billion-in-2014-ag-production Madera County Farm Bureau. (2016). Jim Verboon Landowner/Farmer. Retrieved from https://www.maderafb.com/pdf/Jim%20Verboon%20Bio McGregor, G. S. (1990). Permitting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in California. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 116(1), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9488(1990)116:1(1) Mennis, J. (2002). Socioeconomic disadvantage and environmentally hazardous facility location in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geographer, 40(2), 113–124. Mihaly, M. (2010). Citizen Participation in the Making of Environmental Decisions: Evolving Obstacles and Potential Solutions Through Partnership with Experts And Agents (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1565487). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. 81 Munton, D. (1996). Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice. Georgetown University Press. Nidever, S. (2005, August 4). Settlement reached in sludge lawsuit. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/settlement-reached-in-sludge- lawsuit/article_647431bd-1f42-575f-98b4-c013ccc0bb06.html _____. (2007, August 23). GWF Names “Business of the Year.” The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/business/gwf-named-busines-of-the- year/article_3eeba7e6-d37f-5294-92a3-757009f4874b.html _____. (2014, August 9). KC Spotlight: Kelly Deming-Giacomazzi. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/features/community/kc-spotlight-kelly- deming-giacomazzi/article_f0a5253d-0df8-5825-acb3-0a8d8dc37027.html Olshansky, R. B. (1996). Evaluation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental Management, 1(20), 11–23. _____. (1996b). The California Environmental Quality Act and Local Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 313–330. Pfeffer, M. J., & Lapping, M. B. (1994). Farmland preservation, development rights and the theory of the growth machine: the views of planners ∗. Journal of Rural Studies, 10(3), 233–248. Ramo, A. (2013). Environmental Justice as an Essential Tool in Environmental Review Statutes: A New Look at Federal Policies and Civil Rights Protections and California’s Recent Initiatives. Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envt’l L. & Pol’y, 19, 41. State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.). Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. Retrieved from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/forms/index.shtml Varner, S. S. (1991). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) after Two Decades: Relevant Problems and Ideas for Necessary Reform, The. Pepperdine Law Review, 19, 1447. Yamashita, E. (2008a, April 17). Landfill project committee draws criticism. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/landfill-project-committee- draws-criticism/article_31ad00db-e4b7-5dc4-af07-854e8b145933.html _____. (2008b, May 19). Committee on landfill project still has vacancy. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/committee-on-landfill- project-still-has-vacancy/article_c29145f7-7e5b-5234-84dd-03520f5be18b.html _____. (2008c, July 10). Assessment committee on landfill fills vacancy. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. _____. (2008d, December 8). Protest denounces county process on landfill proposal. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/protest- denounces-county-process-on-landfill-proposal/article_6de5d28d-f2ce-52ef-a6f0- 83919d939a6f.htm. _____. (2009a, March 10). Avenal residents request reconsideration from supervisors. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/avenal-residents- request-reconsideration-from-supervisors/article_d2b96c60-789b-5f98-992e-ae24c0b3872c.html _____. (2009b, April 29). Kettleman landfill settlement accepted. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/kettlemen-landfill-settlement- accepted/article_004d8a98-f70a-5431-bba1-45ade456dda5.html 82 Chapter 4: Community Resilience: 25 years of community-strategies “The city folks would get paid from 8 to 5 o’clock and were sitting down with lunches and we were coming home and going to these meetings at dinner time when we should be feeding our families, but we would go to these meetings and sit down and we couldn’t even get a bottle of water. (A community organizer) says, ‘So, what are you going to do about it?’ I’m thinking, what can I do about it?” (Mona, 67, community advocate) While legal compliance with CEQA and other environmental regulations is not sufficient for meaningful participation, residents and organizers have taken action to be included in the process in a more meaningful way. This chapter focuses on community resilience and the demonstrated efforts to continue opposing the landfill projects by utilizing resources available, creating new ones, and adapting to social and political changes. Here Kettleman City residents and organizers were interviewed on how they responded to meeting barriers to engaging with the public participation process, what actions they took to make the process more meaningful, and how they were included. They were also able to compare how the process changed from the incinerator meetings starting in 1988 to the expansion meetings in beginning in 2005. While community residents continued to respond to the Kings County Planning Commission and BOS decisions they opposed, the government has also responded to them. In some cases, this government response was a move toward procedural equity by providing translation services or moving meeting locations and times, but in others the government’s actions made the process less accessible, such as having police and canine units present. These varying reactions by government agencies are evidence that community strategies have been effective at making the public participation process more meaningful, but also that more strategies do not mean a better government response, as more public participation opportunities do not equate to a more meaningful experience. While some strategies are more effective than others at producing procedural changes, targeting only these procedural changes is not always effective for impacting the overall decision. These procedural changes are a move in the right direction for procedural equity, but this also shows the limitations using the public participation process for impacting outcomes. As argued in chapter 3, legal compliance is a necessary, but insufficient factor for achieving meaningful public participation. This chapter examines how rural, unincorporated community residents have worked toward overcoming barriers to their meaningful inclusion in the public participation process, and examines what challenges remain. While some government agencies have improved their public participation efforts by increasing access and opportunities for participation, residents of impacted communities continue to encounter challenges to their meaningful involvement. Has the public participation process improved? Since the incinerator proposal in 1988, there has been greater attention on the challenges for rural, low income, and communities of color being represented in government decisions (UCC, 1987; 2007 Bullard, 1990; 1993; 2006; Morello-Frosch et al, 2001; Pellow, 2004; Bullard et al 2008; Walker, 2009; Mohai et al, 2009). Additionally, California state agencies have 83 evaluated their permitting process and public participation strategies to assess how they could better include the public in their permitting decisions (DTSC, 2001). The EPA and DTSC have also created environmental justice working groups, staff positions, and published reports discussing the challenges facing rural, low income, and communities of color in being involved with these decisions (CPS 2013; US EPA, 2014). This increased recognition of challenges facing resident’s involvement should have then been accompanied with policy changes to the permitting process to enhance the public participation strategies (DTSC, 2016). While the government agencies have produced reports demonstrating the challenges, their policies have not matched this recognition, and not every government agency recognizes these challenges. Although the government has made some concrete efforts to improving their procedures, these changes have come from community organizing and coalitions demanding the government change. While improving the public participation process was not always a stated intention of community groups in opposing the landfill projects, it has been a priority to be included in these processes to hopefully shape the outcomes. In their attempts to being included in the process, they have been successful at making state government agencies more responsive and inclusive to communities, but not the local county government. Community groups have been successful with some overcoming challenges to meaningful public participation, but not all. Through the use of community-based strategies, opponents of the landfill projects were successful in having their voices heard in the public participation process by having meetings moved to Kettleman City, extending comment periods, and providing translations of documents and at meetings. Despite these improvements to the public participation process, however, challenges remain for including the public in a meaningful way. Here, community residents, organizers, and activists were interviewed on their experiences overcoming challenges to the public participation and permitting processes with the incinerator and expansion proposals. These interviews revealed numerous community-based strategies for opposing the projects that utilized the public participation process as a tool for being included in the permitting process. This analysis shows many of the same challenges remain over the 25 years of public participation because despite the community groups’ best efforts to challenge the process, difficulties to meaningful inclusion remain. Community Residents Experience of an Improved Process Kettleman City residents who opposed the landfill expansion proposal and were also involved with the original incinerator decision are able to compare the two processes and assess how, if at all, public participation has changed. Individuals who participated with meetings at both the incinerator and expansion believe the process has improved because state and local government agencies in 1990 were not responsive, accommodating, or open to acknowledging community concerns. When asked about comparing the incinerator and expansion projects, two organizers involved with both recalled: Public participation as far as notification and translating documents has gotten better, it’s not the same as having someone knock on your door and tell you what is going on in your neighborhood, do you want to be involved? (Raimi, 32, organizer) 84 It’s funny when my parents were involved I think they could have never dreamed having the access that we have now (to government officials) where we can actually talk to, and get public agency leaders in the room and have a dialogue with them. The problem is that even though we have that access the decisions remain the same. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Most residents interviewed on their experiences at public participation meetings feel some aspects of the procedural process have improved, such as translations and access to government officials, but these feeling are based on the lack of responsiveness or acknowledging community concerns they experienced in 1990. From their perspective the process has improved because now the government will translate documents or is accessible. Despite these changes, one long time community organizer stated: Overall, working with communities since 1986, a lot has changed and a lot hasn’t. It’s an ongoing fight. Everywhere from the local to the national, what hasn’t changed is the pro- polluter decisions. We see more grant programs going to communities, or we see better monitoring, but on the big decisions… (Charles, 46, community organizer) Although the public participation process has improved with small wins, such as translations, access, or the recognition of environmental justice concerns, the big decisions that knowingly increase pollution in low-income, communities of color have remained the same. In this way the procedures for public participation are now more legally compliant, but this makes challenging the “big decisions” harder for community groups since they relied on procedural issues for halting polluting projects in their communities. Challenging on procedural issues has been the core of using CEQA litigation to oppose permitting and siting decisions (Cole, 1993; Cole and Foster, 2001). CEQA’s strength is also its limitation that is procedurally based and not outcome driven. Being procedurally based, however, means there is room to challenge a decision if that process did not adhere to legal requirements. The challenge of relying on procedural issues to contest an outcome leaves open the possibility for the process to be both legally compliant, but not meaningfully involve the public. It is this case where you have a process legally compliant, which may itself be a win for the community such as ensuring adequate noticing or opportunities for public input, but then the big decision, the ultimate outcome is one the continues to site and permit the concentration of pollution in communities of color. While community members involved with both the incinerator and expansion projects see some, however small, improvements to the public participation process, those involved only in the expansion proposal or other environmental issues going back only about five years do not the same improvements. These respondents believe little to nothing has changed in either the state or local county agencies because for this group, the process has always legally included them. Alejandro, a community organizer in the Central Valley who has been involved with public participation meetings within the last five years described changes in the public participation process as, “It's pretty much staying the same to be honest with you. I don't think that it's really improving, because it's the same old story. The process has remained the same. If nobody says nothing, they'll dump whatever they're going to dump on you.” While recent participants see less of an improvement in the process than long time participants, all have been involved with community strategies to work toward a more meaningful process. 85 The fact community residents, organizers, lawyers, and community groups are able to compare the incinerator and expansion proposal permitting processes shows their commitment to being involved with decisions impacting their communities. As seen in chapter 3, they experienced challenges to being meaningfully included in both landfill-permitting decisions, but they persisted with opposing the landfill proposals. To address these challenges, they utilized and developed new community based strategies to ensure their voices and opinions were heard in the process. Despite being a low income, predominantly agriculture community with few financial resources to oppose the largest waste management company in the world, they were successful opposing the incinerator proposal. This success should have predicted another successful opposition in 2009 since the community had more experience and the government’s acknowledgment of the challenges to their meaningful participation, but ultimately they encountered new challenges limiting the efficacy of their strategies. Effective Community Strategies for Strengthening the Public’s Role Interviews with Kettleman residents, community organizers, and community groups revealed their strategies for opposing the landfill projects through being meaningfully involved in the permitting process. These interviews showed six community-based strategies that included: community organizing, nonprofit formation, use of media, use of technology, coalition building, and the use of litigation. In 1991, opponents used only four of these strategies: community organizing, nonprofit formation, use of media, and litigation. The use of technology and coalition building were two additional strategies opponents developed in 2009. The public meetings hosted by Kings County planning commission, BOS, and DTSC have improved in some ways by providing more opportunities for public participation, but this has not always expanded their ability to meaningfully include different viewpoints or needs. Evaluating the strategies based on their ability to produce procedural changes or strengthen the community role in the process shows some aspects of the public meetings improved, but others were less inclusive in 2009 than they were in1991. Strategies, Success, and Limitations Community organizing has enabled Kettleman City residents to be more informed on projects, educated on state and local government proceedings and the community’s role in the process, assisted with transporting people to meetings, rallies, and protest, and overtime has been able to accomplish long-term policy changes. Community organizing tactics such as direct actions, canvassing and disseminating information, and transporting people to public participation meetings have been crucial for Kettleman residents to being included in public participation events. During the incinerator proposal, many Kettleman residents were still unaware the landfill existed, let alone so close to their home. In 1988, a then Greenpeace organizer went door to door with a local Kettleman resident to inform people of the landfill, the proposed incinerator, and what they needed to do to stop the incinerator from being built. The original two organizers were successful in their efforts to inform, and they were also successful 86 in garnering support and uniting the community against the project. As two Kettleman residents who became active in opposing the incinerator recalled: It went to a toxic dump in ’79 and we didn’t know what we were living next to until (an organizer), who was with Greenpeace at the time, knocked on our door and said, “did you know you are living next to the largest toxic waste dump in California and that they want to put in an incinerator that will burn toxic waste”? They had no idea. It was a real shock. That is what got them involved because even though my mom she graduated a few years later from high school, but she, they hadn’t had schooling and they weren’t scientists, but they know if you burn something there is ramifications. That is how they found out and they got involved. It wasn’t because of agencies telling us, or companies, it was grass roots organizing. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) We saw a sign on the door that said come to the meeting on the incinerator. We thought it was important so we went and there I met my best friend now… She made me talk, and I wanted to talk because it was outrageous what they wanted to do and I was never someone who participated in anything. My dad always said you can’t fight city hall, but my husband, he worked with the UFW. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) History of Community Organizing One factor enabling the quick mobilization of the community was some Kettleman residents who were agriculture workers were simultaneously working with the United Farm Workers (UFW) union. The UFW had been active in the area since 1962 when they successfully organized the agriculture labor unions in nearby Delano, and had been expanding their outreach in ways that would come to impact workers beyond labor rights. Researcher Tracy Perkins has documented this link between Kettleman City residents and the UFW on her blog, Voices from the Valley (Perkins, 2015). Here Perkins interviewed three individuals connected to both the UFW and organizing in Kettleman around the incinerator, expansion proposal, or both. The interviewees were farmworkers or organizers who were empowered through the UFW and continued to organize in Kettleman City. As one organizer stated, “Once you learn how to organize it’s a tool nobody can ever take away from you. No matter where you are, or who you are working for, it’s something that you are always going to be.” Once the UFW began organizing farmworkers in the valley, they not only unionized workers, but also empowered them to speak out in areas of their lives beyond labor rights (Perkins, 2015). Public speaking is crucial for public participation, but this becomes difficult for people who are undocumented, have limited English skills or do not speak English at all, or have health issues. As Dana, 39, stated, “I want to say something, but I have to have health and be willing and able to give it my all.” Another long time Kettleman City resident, Pamela, noted, “A lot of people had the guts to speak. A lot of people that were undocumented. It was a good experience and bad, but I always look at the good side.” When asked about the good and bad experience of opposing the incinerator, she replied, “A lot of good things came out of it. Kids were inspired to 87 get an education and go further because they saw that with an education they could help and fight.” Here Pamela speaks to issues concerning Kettleman City residents and their ability to engage to politicians, health and immigration status. Based on U.S. Census data, the percentage of people foreign born in Kettleman City increased from 1990 to 2000, declined in 2010 and increased slightly between 2010-2014 (Table 10). The same trend is seen with the percentage of people who are not a citizen. In 1990, the year closest to the incinerator proposal, and 2010 the year closet to the landfill expansion, 45% and 33% of the population in Kettleman City was not a citizen (Table 10). This lack of citizenship status could potentially deter people from participating in local politics. Although interviews revealed many people who participated and spoke out despite their lack of formal citizenship, citizenship remains an important predictor for participating in politics. Citizenship in the U.S. is required for formal engagement with politics, such as voting, but the lack of citizenship can deter people from participating in informal political activities, such as protest or public participation. There is evidence, however, that those who feel most threatened by a potential policy or decision will become politically engaged with the issue (Ramakrishnam, 2005), and that included those who are not a citizen (Barreto et al, 2009). Here community organizing plays an important role in empowering people to speak out against the landfill projects they opposed. The history of community organizing in the area had a role as well, since some of the residents already had experience working with the UFW and continued what they learned in Delano in Kettleman City. Table 10: Foreign born and immigration status, Kettleman City (1990-2010) Foreign Born: 1990 2000 2010 2014 Total Population 1,411 1,499 1,439 1,648 Foreign born 47% 62% 42% 47% Percent not a citizen 45% 52% 33% 37% (Data: U.S. Census 1990-2010, and American Community Survey [ACS], 5-year estimate 2014) Community Organizing and LAC Meeting Attendance The impact from community organizing on increasing opportunities for public participation is seen clearly at the LAC meetings held in 2008 and 2009. Without community organizers, the low attendance at many of the LAC meetings could be interpreted by the LAC and planning agency as a lack of interest in the process. LAC meeting minutes show that while the LAC formed in 2005, only three meetings occurring that year, with the next meeting held in 2008 (LAC meeting minutes, 2008-2009). From April 17, 2008 until April 19, 2009 there were a total of 23 meetings, with 11 held in Hanford, including the final approval meetings, and 9 held in Kettleman City. The LAC meeting minutes show that at 11 of the meetings Kettleman residents voiced public concerns about the composition of the LAC members and the lack of Kettleman City representation. They also stated at the early meetings held in Hanford, opponents to the LAC requested the meetings be held in Kettleman City. These public comments led to a discussion of moving the meetings and all of the remaining LAC meetings, except the meetings finalizing the LAC recommendations, were moved to Kettleman City. Once the meetings were 88 moved the average number of people in attendance increased from 7 to 19 (LAC Meeting Minutes, 2008-2009), showing that holding the meetings in Kettleman instead of Hanford increased the opportunity for public participation. In addition to the increase of people in attendance, more people gave public comments at the meetings in Kettleman City, with the majority of people commenting speaking out against the lack of Kettleman representation with LAC members. At three different meetings held in Kettleman, organizers brought forward petitions signed by Kettleman City residents with a total of 374 signatories stating their opposition to the LAC members and the lack of Kettleman City representation on the committee. The LAC dismissed these concerns throughout the process claiming there was an open seat available and no one had applied, but residents did apply and were not selected (LAC Meeting Minutes, 2009). While organizing was unable to sway the LAC composition, they were successful in moving the meetings to Kettleman City where more people participated, and more were able to voice public comments. Nonprofit Formation In 1988, many Kettleman residents were unaware of the landfill’s existence, and the rural location made the legal requirements for public noticing and community engagement efforts difficult. In 1988 the Kettleman based community group, El Pueblo Para el Aire y Agua Limpia (People for Clean Air and Water) (El Pueblo), was formed by two long time Kettleman City residents at the encouragement of late civil rights lawyer and founder of the Center for Race Poverty and the Environment (CRPE), Luke Cole (Cole and Foster, 2001). At the time, Luke Cole was a Harvard educated civil rights lawyer for the Delano based California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), a nonprofit law and advocacy group. According to CRPE’s website, Cole started the group because “no one was advocating for the legal rights of low-income communities and communities of color facing environmental hazards” (CRPE, 2010-2011). At its core, CRPE has always had an environmental justice focus, and CRLA’s home of Delano meant the focus was also on the Central Valley. Community organizing played a large role informing Kettleman residents of the incinerator and expansion projects, and the formation of El Pueblo enabled the community residents to learn how to stay informed on projects after the incinerator. The legal win against the incinerator changed how the Kings County notifies residents of projects because before they did not adequately notify people, but now there are mailing lists and email lists residents can sign up to be notified for projects. During an interview Kettleman City resident and co-founder for El Pueblo, Pamela, stated, “If I don’t do anything else in this life, I’m glad I was involved with this fight of the incinerator and people are being notified of every step the government takes and have the right to protest. It’s our right.” Community organizers know that it is easier to stop a development from occurring than to shut it down after it has been built (Walsh et al, 1997). Being informed from the start and being notified of projects is then crucial to challenging unwanted projects. In this way community organizing has helped make the public participation more meaningful because by informing people, the community organizers empowered them to participate. This was more successful with the incinerator since the community was able to stop the project, but it was still successful with the expansion project because more community residents participated in the process with the planning commission, the BOS, and the LAC meetings than would have without organizers. 89 Media and Technology In addition to community organizing, technology has changed the way people receive projects updates and information. Community groups have been utilizing the media in the form or news reports as a strategy for meaningful participation by increasing public awareness and applying pressure to the government agencies, but they have recently used technology to create a virtual process for public participation. Government agencies have also recently started using technology in the form of virtual public participation, electronically disseminating information and public notices, and providing services, such as translations, on government websites. As one government official stated: Technology has really revolutionized the EJ movement in the last 10 years. Groups all over the world are able to contribute to local issues in real time. It has also changed the time element because it now takes less time for people to find out what is going on. People are better informed, and can be better organized, and that leads to community empowerment. (Mark, 46, state government official) For many government agencies, informing the public of projects is key for meaningful participation, and they recognize people receive their news in different ways now than before. Today, many people receive their news electronically, but the old methods of public noticing remain. Government agencies can reach more people more quickly by using websites, email, and list serves over posting notices in newspapers or on sites. Community groups have also shifted to using list serves and websites over other methods, but they also retain door-to-door canvassing. Many of the environmental justice groups active in Kettleman City maintain websites with news updates, but also serve as recruitment for new members. This enables people to find organizations working in their area, and allows the groups to address environment concerns and issue press releases in real time, without having to rely on local newspapers, although local newspapers have played an important role informing the public. El Pueblo has been frequently cited in the Hanford Sentinel, the local newspaper based in Hanford. The newspaper followed the landfill expansion closely and would report on the local hearings and outcomes, as well as both the opposition and support for the decisions. In addition to more traditional media outlets such as websites and newspapers, community groups in the Central Valley created their own reporting system that brings together community residents and state government officials known as the IVAN model. Identifying Violations Affecting Neighborhoods (IVAN) is an environmental monitoring system and tool to allow for community involvement with enforcement and violations. The first IVAN network was developed in the Imperial Valley in 2008-2009. As of July 2015 there are six IVAN networks in six counties throughout, but they are not linked. The system has two main components, a reporting website and a taskforce that meets monthly and reviews the reported violations (ivanonline.org). An IVAN founder also involved with opposing the landfill expansion project believes IVAN works because, “It allows the government to be partners with communities to strengthen enforcement,” and “It replaces one way flows of information between government to community members.” 90 IVAN has been effective at bringing both community members and government officials to the table to discuss issues impacting communities. One member of the Fresno IVAN stated, “It provides a platform for community voice and allows communities to create their own agendas”, and “IVAN is an innovative approach to EJ violation enforcement and has the ability to elevate the community voice. It shifts local scale problems to the state or regional.” Despite both community members and government agencies seeing IVAN as a success, challenges with the model remain. These challenges include the government agencies have their own reporting websites that are not linked to IVAN, not everything reported through IVAN is illegal or a violation, and the government responses vary, with enforcement only applying to illegal violations. In 1988, mail and posting public notices were the main methods government agencies had available to them for informing people of projects, and these are legally required under CEQA law. While CEQA requirements still call for public notices most people do not get their news from printed papers. This is a limitation for government agencies being able to catch up to using technology and knowing how people get information. Kings County has not moved to using list serves for noticing projects, and still relies on mailing out notices. Although CEQA and Tanner Act laws specify noticing requirements, issues arose with the noticing of meetings for the 2005-2009 expansion proposal LAC meetings held in Kettleman City and Hanford. Meeting times and locations for special meetings were set at the previous meetings, but the mailed notices were sent less than a week before the meetings were held, which did not leave residents enough time to make plans to attend. While the decision was then made to send out notices at least a week before a meeting and advertise in the Hanford and Avenal newspapers, the use of electronic list-serves would have enabled faster communication to inform people of the meeting details. Coalition Building El Pueblo has been active with two coalitions, the Central California Environmental Justice Network (CCEJN) and the California Environmental Justice Coalition (CEJC). While both groups have an environmental justice focus, CCEJN has been around since 2000 and includes twenty-three groups from only the central valley region of California. In contrast, CEJC was formed in 2014 and consists of fifty-five environmental justice groups from around the entire state of California. Both have been valuable to El Pueblo for sharing resources, information, and participating in public meetings, but CCEJN actively participated with El Pueblo in public participation meetings on the landfill expansion. Based in Fresno, CA, CCEJN brings together environmental justice focused groups within the central valley with the mission of minimizing environmental degradation in rural, low- income, communities of color. Founded in 2000 as an offshoot of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment (CRPE), CCEJN held conferences once a year at a different valley town to partner with new organizations and discuss issues impacting their communities (ccejn.wordpress.com). CCEJN members were present at the 2009 EIR hearing for the landfill expansion in Hanford, and were active after that meeting with the additional permit approval meetings with DTSC and the Regional Water Board. At one Regional Water Board meeting held at the Kettleman City Elementary School in January 2014, CCEJN members spoke in opposition 91 to permit approval, but also against the process in which the EIR approval was obtained, calling the process unjust. The CCEJN coordinator stated: Central California Environmental Justice Network is opposed to this permit expansion because we feel that there is extensive evidence that this facility contributes greatly to adverse health hazards for residents. I’ve heard many of you mention tonight that police presence is typical of any ‘controversial permit decision.’ Now, I ask, why is this a controversial permit decision? Is it because we don’t know how to behave? Because the residents of Kettleman City don’t know how to behave? Or is it because the data is questionable? Or perhaps because of the extensive history of violations of this facility? Nonetheless if we are going to treat this permit as a special and controversial decision, then I think it is fair to place special restrictions or ask for the expansion of this facility. (CCEJN Coordinator) CCEJN raised issues at the Regional Water Board going beyond the issues of water and the landfill calling into question the EIR approval process itself. Since the Kings County Board of Supervisors then considered the EIR process complete, the few outlets available for expressing concern included government agencies still requiring approval of the expansion permit. CCEJN members utilized every opportunity available to them to demonstrate their opposition to the expansion approval, as well as their concerns with the EIR approval process in Kings County. In addition to working with CCEJN, El Pueblo joined the California Environment Justice Coalition (CEJC) as one of its inaugural members. CEJC officially formed in July 2014 with eighteen urban, rural, and indigenous groups across California, and by November 2014 there were 55 groups who met in Kettleman City for the first coalition meeting (cejcoaltion.org). While many of the groups participating in the coalition had been working together for years, the coalition meeting was the first time they all came together to discuss the individual issues affecting their communities and decide what they would do about it moving forward. There were over one hundred people in attendance representing almost fifty groups who spent eight hours discussing environmental health issues, the structure of the coalition, and campaigns for the group. The meeting was planned as an all-day event, and after lunch there was a large group discussion on finding common issues among all of the groups. Immediately the issue was raised of working on campaigns that would impact the State of California, and not just local issues. After a brief large group discussion, the group went into break out workshops of: 1) reforming the DTSC 2) cumulative impacts 3) civil rights 4) creating the group governance structure. The workshop on reforming the DTSC focused on bringing the control back to communities. The recommendations focused around reforming the DTSC so that communities impacted by the issues being decided would have more control and greater voice in the decisions. After these discussions two issues for the group remained on who would speak for them if they obtained greater control, and who would represent the impacted community. CEJC chose the DTSC reform campaign as their inaugural campaign because all 100 representatives in attendance at that first meeting agreed DTSC impacts all of their communities, and the need for the government agency to change how they make decisions. Despite the range in issues from hazardous waste, to superfund site cleanup, to toxic facility violations, all of the representatives saw the important role DTSC plays in protecting human health. Being a state 92 agency with the ability to oversee permits, cleanups, and closures, the operations and management of DTSC is crucial for communities, but especially small, rural, and unincorporated communities lacking representation in a local city government. The community groups coming together to share information began long before this first meeting, this meeting just established the official coalition group. Many of the community leaders have been in contact for years because despite large geographical separation among community groups in the state, low-income, communities of color have faced a similar burden for hosting the disproportionate burden of pollution. In 2007 two community group leaders, one from Kettleman City and one from Bayview Hunters Point in San Francisco realized they were connected on these issues when they discovered the 2006 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) cleanup in Bayview sent the PCB contaminated soil to Kettleman City, one year before the birth defects cluster in Kettleman. The cleanup and closure of the PG&E plant in Bayview was contentious in itself, and was a long battle for Bayview residents. In 2010 the community of Bayview-Hunters Point was predominantly African American (48%) with more than 40% living in poverty (Bayview Hunters Point Mothers Environmental Health & Justice Committee, 2004). Over half of the community is zoned for industrial use (Bayview Hunters Point Mothers Environmental Health & Justice Committee, 2004), and the community has hosted many unwanted land uses, including junkyards, steel manufacturing, power generation facilities, and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (Ramakrishnan, 2008). This shipyard was active during WWII with the 420-acre site providing space for cleanup and radiation tests. This cleanup and tests left the area contaminated by radiation, along with petroleum, heavy metals, PCBs, and other pollution sources (Fimrite, 2015). PG&E began operations with the Hunters Point Power Plant in 1929, and in 1994 they proposed building another facility. Once hearing of the proposal, the community began pressuring the government not to allow another facility and to look into the high respiratory disease rates. The San Francisco Health Department studied these claims finding the residents had twice the average incidence rates of asthma and cancers, but they could not find a single cause or establish a direct link between the health outcomes and emissions from the power plant (Locke, 2006). Despite this lack of acknowledgement from the government, the community continued to organize and protest the facilities and ultimately in 2006, PG&E officially closed the facility and began moving toward a cleanup of the site (Fulbright, 2006). Although closing the facility was a win for the community, the cleanup of site would take years. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were common is electrical transformers built from 1929 to 1977, when they were banned due to evidence they can become concentrated in the environment and have negative health impacts. Despite their ban, PCBs remain in transformers made before 1977 and they contaminate soil, two things treated as hazardous waste and must be disposed in hazardous waste disposal facilities (EPA PCB Facts). The disposal of the PCB waste became a point of contention as community residents from Kettleman City and Bayview learned the PCBs were sent to the Kettleman Hills Facility. Kettleman City and Bayview residents explained how they learned about the PCB shipments to the Kettleman Hills Facility: Part of that settlement was that every year, based on the tonnage of waste, if it was municipal waste, we would get a dollar, if it was toxic waste, we would get 35 cents on the ton for as long as that particular landfill was open. I'm on the board for the Kettleman City Foundation. I knew that every year when they brought us the check, they called it 93 their contribution, I called it the settlement fund, every year when they brought us a check, it would range from $8,000 to $16,000. In 2007, the general manager himself came out and brought us the check because that year, it was $80,000. That tells me that in that preceding year, they had a lot more waste than what was normal. Which also happens to coincide with when all those babies were conceived, which also happens to coincide with the closing of the PG&E plant in Hunters View in the Bay Area, when they brought all of these PCBs to this land fill. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Those PCBs came from the cleanup from the Bayview Hunters Point PG&E cleanup. Good news was the cleanup was happening, but bad news it was going to Kettleman. This was when Bayview got involved and got PG&E to stop sending waste to Kettleman. The way we knew about the shipment escalating was the manager of Chem Waste came into a Kettleman City foundation meeting because part of the settlement from the lawsuit was Chem Waste would pay into a community fund an amount of money for every pound of PCBs, and all of a sudden there was a fat check and people were like, what’s this about? (Mona, 67, Bayview resident) After learning about the increased shipment of PCBs to Kettleman, members of the Bayview community active with CCEJN pressured PG&E to stop sending the soil to that facility. A PG&E spokeswoman, Melissa Mooney, acknowledged the PCBs from Bayview were sent to Kettleman in a San Mateo County Times article dated November 2007. This same article cites a WM memo where, Robert Henry, the general manager for the Kettleman Hills facility acknowledging the check to the Kettleman City Foundation for $165, 903.89, half of which came from PCBs at $1 a ton. The memo also shows that in 2006, 83,406.18 tons of PCB waste was disposed at the facility, and although Henry would not disclose how much of the PCBs shipped to Kettleman came from the Bayview cleanup site, Mooney told the San Mateo County Times that 5,000 pounds of dirt containing .7 pounds of PCBs were sent from the PG&E Bayview site to Kettleman City (Kumeh, 2007). The sending of the PCB material from Bayview to Kettleman was a point of contention not only because Kettleman and Bayview residents viewed the move as a shift from an environmental burden in one community to another, but also because it coincided with the birth defects cluster later found in Kettleman City. Despite the lack of evidence linking the birth defects cluster to the hazardous landfill10, the government cannot be certain what went into the air from the landfill during that time. A 2008 email between two EPA employees points out that during April 2008, a time when the health studies were being carried out in Kettleman City, “DTSC granted a suspension of analyzing for pesticide and PCBs” (Poalinelli, 2010). This email, while not enough evidence to demonstrate a concrete link between the birth defects and landfill emissions, does show that at a time when the facility was supposedly under scrutiny and the most intense level of investigation, the government did not know what was going into the air. Later in 2010, the EPA fined the Kettleman Hills Facility $300,000 for improper management of PCBs (Table 11). In an EPA news release dated November 2010, the EPA stated 10 See chapter 5 for more information on the birth defects investigation. 94 they discovered improper management of PCBs and samples around the building detected PCBs above the regulatory limits during a routine inspection. They also fined the company an addition $1,000,000 for other violations. This violation of improper handling of PCBs coincided with the increase of PCB material to the site, and the time period of the birth defects in Kettleman City. While the EPA did find the violations, the coalition knew about the increase and was pushing via media outlets for the government to investigate the connection. Table 11: Waste Management Fines (1983-2013)11 Year Violation (Source) Amount 1983 EPA found 46 potential violations of the company’s Intermit Status Document (EDF, 1985). Unknown 1984 EPA cited 4 violations (EDF, 1985). $108,000 1985 RCRA and TSCA violations, 130 violations for leaks contaminating the local water and other violations (Miller, 1992). $1.9 million 1985 Penalties and remedial costs to resolve environmental problems, for mishandling of hazardous waste, including PCB (Miller, 1992). $4 million 1988 Fined $80k for a fire at the landfill (Miller, 1992). $80,000 1989 11 violations in operations and environmental regulation (Miller, 1992). $363,000 2010 Allowing carcinogens to leach into soil (Wozniacka, 2010). $300,000 2013 Failure to report 72 spills (Nidever, Mar 28 2013). $311,000 The PG&E Bayview cleanup presents the current environmental justice paradox that to clean up neighborhoods of communities hosting these environmental hazards, they are being disposed of in other low-income communities of color (Szasz, 1994; Pellow, 2004). The problem of one community’s environmental hazards is shifted to another location, which is also one goal of the environmental justice movement of seeking non-displacement goals (Roberts and Toffolon-Weiss, 2001; Benford, 2005). This environmental justice paradox is that to create a more environmentally sustainable country, the need for recycling facilities, hazardous landfills and waste disposal will continue to grow. As Pellow (2004) showed, the politics of siting and locating pollution, specifically landfills, in low-income communities of color become a war for where waste will be disposed. In this quest for sustainable waste management Pellow demonstrated the problem is not how to balance these facilities with the needs of the environment, but rather the problem is which communities will pay the costs for facilities (Pellow, 2004). The costs of the hosting these facilities are not limited to the actual financial costs for operations, management, and cleanup, but include financial costs of home value depreciation, as well as long-term health implications (Pastor et al, 2001). 11 For a complete list of inspections, violations, and fines see CWM Facility DTSC compliance history (DTSC CWM Facility Compliance History, 2013). 95 Litigation & Legislation A last resort strategy for strengthening the community’s role has been the successful use of litigation and legislation. As the main law firm opposing the incinerator and the expansion proposals, CRLA has a mission of using litigation last. Luke Cole, founder of CRLA, believed in building community power first and that to build power, advocates must move beyond the “three great myths of white America: 1) the truth will set you free 2) government is on your side and 3) we need a lawyer.” The first myth rests on the idea there is a right and wrong, but Cole saw environmental justice issues not about truth or right and wrong, but about power. The second myth is then based on this idea is power and an acknowledgment that the government has power and responds to power. The third myth is based on Cole’s idea that lawyers are not the means for building community power (Brostrom and Nzegwu, 2010). Although Luke Cole and other environmental lawyers have considered litigation a last resort strategy, it has been useful in opposing environmental hazards and rectifying unjust public participation procedures. In 1991 CRLA filed a lawsuit on behalf of El Pueblo alleging the EIR did not comply with CEQA because of the lack of translation of documents and that only the exec summary was translated of the 1000 page EIR. On December 30, 1991, the California Superior Court ruled in favor of El Pueblo finding the EIR that resulted in the CUP for the construction of the incinerator was inadequate violating CEQA regulations. The court determined the EIR inaccurately reasoned the air quality impacts would be mitigated to an insignificant level, and the public was not meaningfully included in the process due to the lack of Spanish translation of EIR and other documents (Cole, 1994). Since this lawsuit was won on the lack of translated documents, community residents thought the county government going forward would provide translated documents and most did provide services at meetings. In 2009, however, documents were translated and translation services were provided, but Spanish speakers were given less time to speak. While CRPE, El Pueblo, and Greenaction all filed complaints with the State alleging the discriminatory practice of not allowing Spanish speakers the equal time allotted to English speakers (Angel, 2015), DTSC’s counsel believed the time to be equal because both Spanish speakers and English were given a total of five minutes (Interview, 2015). Although community organizing and litigation were successful in having documents translated, they were limited in winning equitable translations of comments at meetings. The 1991 Incinerator Lawsuit Beyond Kettleman The 1991 legal win for Kettleman City was a larger national win for environmental justice advocates, and encouraged support for the movement. The increased awareness of environmental justice issues through the Kettleman lawsuit (Cole, 1994) coupled with the proliferation of environmental justice studies demonstrating disparate environmental impacts for low-income communities of color led to the creation of new environmental justice legislation, including the federal executive order 12898. In 1994, President Clinton signed executive order 12898 officially titled the Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Order. This important federal action was the first time the US government formally recognized their role and responsibility for environmental justice. The stated goal of the order is to enable minority populations to feel part of the government, and 96 the order encourages federal agencies to evaluate the implications of programs to avoid unfair burdens. Following the signing of the executive order, CRLA filed a federal Civil Rights complaint against the EPA on behalf of three community groups from the Central Valley and Southern CA. The complaint states all of the toxic landfills in California are located in or near low-income, Latino communities, and that these communities were intentionally targeted for siting. The communities hosting the toxic sites are located in Buttonwillow (Kern County), Kettleman City (Kings County) and Westmorland (Imperial County). The complaint alleged DTSC violated federal laws because of the disproportionate impact from permitting the landfills in low-income Latino communities (Cole, 1994). The EPA launched an investigation into DTSC based on the claims of environmental racism. This was in itself a win for the three communities as it was one of ten accepted by the EPA and the first one ever in the Western US. In 2011, seventeen years after filing the Title VI complaint against the EP, the three community groups asked a judge to order the EPA to respond (Rodriguez, 2011). Filed in 1994, the complaint was in 2015 one of 32 open pending since the 1990s, where one complaint has been resolved and about one hundred others have been dismissed (Lombardi et al, 2015). In January 2010, CRLA filed a lawsuit on behalf of El Pueblo following the December 2009 Kings County Board of Supervisors EIR approval for the landfill expansion. The lawsuit alleged the permit based on the EIR approval is not valid because the EIR failed to properly evaluate the environmental impact to the surrounding community, and that the Kings County Board of Supervisors engaged in discrimination in the permitting procedures by not translating all documents into Spanish and not holding accessible meetings based on their location and time for residents to attend. The failure to consider the impact to the community charge was brought based on the recent community health study that discovered the birth defects cluster in the community (Griswold, 2010). Although the court did not sustain the charges in the lawsuit, it did grab the attention of the California legislature leading to the California Department of Public Health’s investigation into the birth defects cluster (Yamashita, November 23 2010). Support for the WM and the Landfill Shifts Another challenge that arose for expansion opponents was the seemingly increased support for WM. Between the incinerator proposal in 1988 and the expansion proposal in 2005, public support increased for both WM and the expansion project. This increased support for WM and the landfill can be attributed to shifts in support by local organizations, demographic changes in the Kettleman Community, and WM’s use of their own corporate sponsored community organizer. As evidenced by community interviews, newspaper articles and final Kings County Planning Commission meeting minutes, in 1990 the opposition to the incinerator was visible with about two hundred people in attendance opposing the project (Cole, 1994). In 2009, WM workers and supporters filled the meeting by the thousands. News reports show the use of monitors and outdoor audio equipment were necessary to accommodate the number of people in attendance at the meeting, and one reporter referred to the meeting as a “sea of green” in reference to the green “I support Waste Management” shirts that were handed out to landfill supporters (Figure 3) (Yamashita, Oct 6 2009). In meeting minutes from the October 5, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, 66 people were recorded speaking in favor or support of the 97 landfill expansion, while 31 were recorded speaking in opposition (Kings County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Oct 5 2009). Nonetheless, the community organizing efforts supplying transportation to meetings increased the number of people who would not have been able to attend the meetings in Hanford. In 1990 the community’s ability to rally support had much to do with the formation of group El Pueblo. Being a group of community residents that were farm workers and farm owners, plus added support from external groups CRLA and Greenaction, the group was effective at being able to fill meetings in opposition of the incinerator. Although El Pueblo was able to win their court case and oppose the incinerator in 1991, they have not been so successful in this recent round of meetings, hearings, and court cases. Representation at the expansion meetings has shifted from community led to corporate led as there is more outspoken support for the expansion than there was for the incinerator, as organization that opposed the incinerator spoke in favor of the expansion. Some of these organizations included the same members in 1990 as 2009, with the reasons for the opposition of the incinerator being cited as potential health risks with an unknown technology, and the support stated as the company being a trustworthy with citations of the economic benefits to the area. Figure 3: The “Sea of Green” shirts (Photo taken from video footage of the October 5, 2009 meeting (Plevin 2009)) In addition to increased support for WM support at public meetings, community organizations that opposed the incinerator in the 1980s supported the expansion project. A letter written by the Kettleman City Community Services District to the Kings County Planning Commission dated August 21, 1985 showed their objection to the incinerator by stating, “that the (Kettleman City Community Services District) Board is against any expansion of Chemical Waste Management and for more controls by the County EPA, Health Department, or any 98 agency governing toxic waste sites” (Osuna, 1985). Another letter written by the same Kettleman City Community Services District dated September 25, 2013 showed the organization’s support for the expansion project stating, “The Board of Kings County Community Services District (KCCSD) at its meetings on Tuesday, September 17, 2013, voted to strongly support the Waste Management permit request to expand the B-18 hazardous waste landfill at the Kettleman Hills Facility” (Ware, 2013). This letter of support written in 2013 cites Waste Management as being a “critical part of the infrastructure in Kings County” and that “Waste Management has assisted KCCSD for decades” (Ware, 2013). The cited opposition to the incinerator in 1985 was the potential health risks from the project, but those health risks should have only increased by 2013 with the knowledge then of the birth defects cluster and contaminated water wells. Instead of strong opposition, to the project, the KCCSD district, which is comprised of elected community members, switched to strong support. At first glance this switch seems unfounded and confusing, but knowing more about the organization and new information learned about the water wells in Kettleman City between 1985 and 2013 makes their decision clearer from an economic perspective. The KCCSD Supports WM The KCCSD is an elected board of local community residents charged with the responsibility of overseeing and maintaining the operation of the two water wells in Kettleman City (Kings County Community Development Agency, 2009). Today it is public knowledge that the wells are contaminated with naturally occurring benzene and arsenic, but this knowledge of the contaminated wells was not public until 1993 (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1993), the year the incinerator lawsuit was settled. Once the contamination was known, the district began going into debt for a new water system that is now at about $552,0000, a sum the district has not been able to afford even with increasing water prices. The 2005 LAC, which constituted members from the KCCSD and the water board, included in their recommendations that WM would pay the entire debt owed by KCCSD if they were successful in obtaining their expansion permit from the county (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009). While no member of either board has stated this is the reason for KCCSD’s support of the project, the district now stands to gain financially from the expansion permit approval. While support from local organizations for community health concerns has waned from the incinerator proposal to the expansion proposal, government and appointed committee representation has remained supportive of the landfill’s projects. The BOS and LAC have supported both the incinerator and expansion projects. Although the BOS is elected, the LAC is an appointed committee comprised of local community members and interests. While organizers were able to inform the community of the LAC and their meetings, the LAC has remained unrepresentative of the community most impacted by the expansion proposal. More than one community resident interviewed stated they were unsuccessful with their LAC application, but they still attended the meetings. 99 Community Changes 1990-2014 The community of Kettleman City bounded in 135 acres along highway 41 has in some ways changed since 1991, but in others it has remained the same. Looking at only data from 1990 and 2010, the Census years closest to the incinerator and expansion projects, the data show what should be an increased ability for the community to oppose government decisions through an increase in social capital. Between 1990 and 2010, U.S. Census data show Kettleman City experienced an increase in the population’s overall education attainment, median household income, and a decrease in the percentage of foreign-born population or those who were not a citizen (Table 12). This is only looking at the two snap shots in time of 1990 and 2010, but including the 2000 Census data show a more nuanced picture of how the population changed between 1990 and 2000, and again from 2000 to 2010. Table 12: Demographic Changes in Kettleman City from 1990-2014 Percent Change 1990-2000 1990-2010 1990-2014 Population Count 6% 2% 14% Percent Pop Under Age 18 -10% -3% -2% Percent Pop Over Age 64 33% 40% 33% Percent No High School Diploma -5% -47% -270% Percent With High School Diploma -14% 72% 80% Percent Employed Ag industry -19% -2% -2% Percent Foreign Born 32% -12% -12% Percent Not a Citizen 16% -36% -36% (Data: U.S. Census 1990, 2000, 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year estimates 2010- 2014) An Aging Demographic In 1990 there were 1,411 Kettleman residents, and in 2010 there were 1,439, a 2% increase (Table 12). This population was much older in 2010 than 1990, with the percent of residents under 18 declining by 3% in 2010, but increasing the age group over 65 by 40% (Table 13). Comparing the population age distribution from 1990 to 2000 reveals the shift in age structure (Figure 4). One Kettleman resident who participated opposing both the incinerator and expansion projects noted: Our older people that were in the fight, well, they are gone. They died. Those were our allies. There are a few people that we can muster up to go to meetings and do something. (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) With an aging population, fewer people who were involved with the incinerator could attend the expansion meetings. In addition to age contributing to the decline in meeting attendance, residents involved with the incinerator moved out of Kettleman City. Although Kettleman experienced a net growth in population from 1990 to 2010, it declined by 4% from 1990 to 2000. In the ten years after the incinerator proposal the population declined, and the population that was there experienced a decrease in both education attainment and median household income 100 (Table 12). In 2000, the percent of residents with a high school diploma decreased by 14%, and the median income fell 18%. One Kettleman organizer recalled that time after the incinerator proposal: “We saw that the supervisors that are supposed to be taking care of us. They weren’t doing a good job, and people started moving out. They moved to Lemoore or other towns. We started getting old and losing the old timers. (One of the original EL Pueblo founders) moved out and I thought she would never move. Even she took a hit on her house. She couldn’t sell it for what she wanted. They told her at the bank that you have a landfill near her house. She had to sell it cheaper.” (Pamela, 78, Kettleman City resident and organizer) After the incinerator, some people who were involved opposing the project, even founding organizers, moved out of Kettleman. Those who could afford it moved away from Kettleman, even taking a loss on their homes, and those who were left had lower incomes and lower education attainment. This movement out of the community, combined with the aging population, left fewer people who organized and participated in the incinerator to participate in the expansion project. Even though the two projects occurred in the same location, the population changed. When asked about the differences in the incinerator and expansion opposition, one longtime resident and organizer involved with both recalled: “People were angry and at that time there was real cohesion in the community. People saw it was unfair and they were willing to speak against it. It was a different time from now days. It has always been, in Kings County its conservative and there are very specific people in power and they certainly don’t live in Kettleman City.” (Virgil, 80) This “different time” in 2010 from 1990 refers to the demographic changes, but also the community in Kettleman. In 2010 the percent of people with a high school diploma increased from 1990 by 72%, there were fewer foreign born (-12%), and more of the foreign born were citizens (78%). While these social variables are aspects of social capital including increased education attainment being positively associated with challenging landfill siting (Pastor et al, 2001) or the percent foreign born negatively associated with opposition to incinerator siting (Davidson and Anderton, 2000; Hunter, 2000), alone they cannot explain the shift in support for WM. Table 13: Percent Change in Age Group: 1990-2010 Age Group 1990-2000 2000-2010 Under 18 40.0% 36.4% 18-64 56.8% 59.4% 65 and over 3.3% 4.2% (Data: U.S. Census 1990, 2000, 2010) 101 Figure 4: Kettleman City Population Pyramids (1990 & 2010) WM Corporate Sponsored Organizer One factor that helps explain the increased public support for WM and the expansion project in 2010 is WM’s ability to generate community support through the use of a corporate sponsored community organizer. In 2011 Cecilio Barrera joined the Waste Management team as their “Community Relations Manager” (KHF, 2016). Although Barrera joined after the Kings County BOS approval of the permit in 2010, prior to joining WM, Barrera served as a member of the nearby Corcoran Planning Commission from 2009 to 2012 (Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes, Feb 6 2012). This means there was one year when Barrera was both a member of the Corcoran Planning Commission, and a representative for WM. The City of Corcoran, like many of the cities in Kings County is predominantly low- income area with the dominant industry being agriculture. With the main industry being agriculture, the area relies on the roads and transportation system to move around heavy trucking equipment, which is dependent on the county’s general fund. In 2011, the Kings County Transportation Plan noted the hazardous waste fund of about $200,000 would be allocated to street and road improvements from WM funds (Kings County Association of Governments, 2010). This notation of the money coming from WM signifies the importance of the company to the county, and specific cities that rely on these funds to continue their most lucrative businesses. As a committee under the city council, planning commissioners have the responsibility to make recommendations to projects, such as road improvements. In this way, the local city councils, along with the county had a financial interest in WM continuing their operations at the KHF. While still a member of the Corcoran Planning Commission, Barrera moved to Kettleman City in 2011 and began organizing for Waste Management. Barrera’s role as community relations manager required him to be active in the Kettleman City community by hosting WM events for Kettleman City residents, and in 2013 he was re-elected to the Kettleman City Community Services District (KCCD) (Johnson, 2013), the organization that maintains the water 15% 5% 5% 15% Under 5 year 10 to 14 years 18 to 24 years 35 to 44 years 55 to 64 years 75 to 84 years Kettleman City Population Pyramid 1990 MALE FEMALE 15% 5% 5% 15% Under 5 years 10 to 14 years 18 to 24 years 35 to 44 years 55 to 64 years 75 to 84 years Kettleman City Population Pyramid 2010 MALE FEMALE 102 wells in Kettleman City and wrote letters of support for the expansion project. He has organized field trips of the hazardous landfill for Kettleman City Elementary students (Yamashita, 2012), and hosted WM sponsored events such as cohosting an Earth Day event with the elementary school (KHF, April 2012) or the “Operation Gobble” event handing out 800 turkeys for Thanksgiving (Botill, 2014). These events that provide social opportunities for the community have led to WM’s positive image and residents seeing the need for the company’s presence in their community. Opponents to the landfill expansion see Barrera’s work for WM influencing the community’s opinion of the company. As some residents involved with the incinerator fight have moved or passed away, the people moving in to Kettleman City experience the benefits of having community sponsored events, free food and clothes, and water as the company has been paying for 30 gallons of bottled water for every household (KHF, 2016). One Kettleman resident believes the increased support for the expansion project is a mix of demographic changes and the WM organizer: “Like I tell you, half of the people have moved out and the other half is farmworkers that they don’t even know what an incinerator is. They don’t participate because they don’t know what’s going on. All they know is when Chem Waste does their big Cinco de Mayo festivals or 16th of September, they give out free t-shirts, free caps, food and we were the ones that used to do that before but they just took over. You can’t fight the money they have. They have this worker that came to live in the town that started those festivals and giving away stuff and I guess it’s to show that’s it’s OK to live here.” (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Residents newer to Kettleman City participate in the WM corporate sponsored events where they receive food, clothes, and socializing. Opponents and organizers involved with the incinerator see Barrera as competing with them to organize the community and gain support, and they do not have the money to compete with the largest waste management company. Since 2011, WM has adopted their own organizing strategies by hosting an organizer for events in Kettleman City, but their strategies are seen prior to 2011. A Kettleman resident and organizer noted: “They (WM) are so much smarter now about how they approach the community. Before they would say things like, if you speak Spanish go to the back of the room. They aren’t that ignorant now. They are going to hire people who speak Spanish who will schmooze the community and make them like this is good for you, or play on the poverty by giving them stuff. Giving them food and throwing them parties. They are so much smarter about it now, but it’s really the same thing. (Leo, 22, Kettleman City resident) The community organizers have evolved their strategies to oppose to WM’s expansion proposal, but WM has also evolved theirs to garner support. Kings County BOS might not be responsive to the community, but WM has a vested interest in having broad support, and they have the means to achieve this by supporting community grants and social events. Although WM started using a corporate organizer in 2011, they developed and successfully used this strategy in another 103 community similar to Kettleman. In a case study of community residents opposing the nation’s largest landfill in 1978, here WM already began employing the use of a “corporate relations manager” (Alley et al, 1995). As the largest waste management company in the US, WM own the largest hazardous waste landfill located in rural Emelle, Alabama. WM purchased the originally 300-acrea site in 1978, one after they purchased the KFH and one year before the KHF became a hazardous landfill. Emelle was then, and is now, in one of the most impoverished regions of the US where over 90% of the residents near the landfill are black. When residents began protesting the facility, WM brought in a corporate relations manager to give tours of the facility and highlight the economic contributions to the poor community. Over time, these efforts were successful in showing the economic benefits of the company and producing a more positive image of WM. This strategy ultimately helped increase support for WM and the landfill expansion in Kettleman City, as different organizations and individuals speak of the benefits of having WM (Allet et al, 1995). The WM KHF website states, “The Kettleman Hills facility: There’s More Than You Know,” and continues with “Safe and Essential for California’s Environmental Stewardship” (KHF, 2016). Here the company notes the “essential” role they play in hazardous waste disposal, which recalls the tagline heard at meetings that, “it has to go somewhere.” They state they are the most thoroughly analyzed waste facility in the US, siting the birth defects study and the result was “no linkage gas been found between the facility activities and any public health impacts in Kettleman City.” They continue with comments to the lack of connection between the poor air and water quality and their facility, and then discuss the benefits to the community. They list paying the water debt, matching the $50,000 for bottled water supplied by CDPH, and providing up to $3 million over 30 years for the new water treatment plant. Paying the water debt, however, is a legal condition from the LAC when they received their permit from Kings County. Additional benefits to the community include the reduced diesel emissions (from what), another LAC condition, and the job opportunities. According to the WM site, the KHF provides 90 full time jobs, but the Kings County Housing 2011 Update showed only 37 full time jobs. WM also states they generate $17.5 million in “economic activity,” and contribute $1-2 million annually to the county’s general fund (KHF, 2016). Some Kettleman residents believe WM is an asset to the community because of the revenue and jobs, but they also believe the facility is safe for them. While some residents view opponents of the landfill as trying to get money from the company, they also see the health conditions as individual concerns. As one Kettleman City business owner stated, “Don’t believe everything you hear about the birth defects because those people are a lot of first and second generation from Mexico, and cleft palates are common down there” (Interview, 2013). When pressed on his view, he answered that they were just after money. These statements highlight the divisions in the community as some feel the landfill is safe and the company a benefit to them, and stark contrast to the unified community in 1990 opposing the incinerator. Conclusion Working with few resources to create procedural changes to public participation, Kettleman City landfill opponents utilized community-based strategies that resulted in changes to the public participation process. These procedural changes occurred because of opponent’s 104 resilience to challenging the less inclusive process, and include community organizing, the use of media and technology, coalition building, and litigation and legislation success based on the lack of meaningful participation. What is surprising shouldn’t be what a community with few resources was able to accomplish, the surprise should be what a community that was highly organized and involved with every opportunity wasn’t able to accomplish. In some ways the strategies were effective by creating procedural change in the form of translations and meeting locations, but even when the strategies were unsuccessful in changing the process, the strategies were effective at increasing public involvement. Even when the meeting was not moved, organizing was able to inform people of a meeting and provide transportation there. Despite the successful implementation of community-based strategies, some challenges remain, and new ones have evolved. In addition to procedural challenges, such as the use of police at public meeting, in 2009 opponents faced increase support for WM and the expansion project. Economic factors, such as the company providing financing for a much needed water filtration system and other financial contributions to the community have helped promote a positive company image, as well as the provision of social events, clothing, and food for low income residents. The demographic changes have supported this positive company image as newer Kettleman residents have experienced WM as a financial beneficiary for the community, and the corporate sponsored organizer has been successful in promoting this image by hosting social events. Older residents involved with the incinerator are leaving the community by either moving away if they can afford, or having passed away. Despite the community experiencing an increase of resources through higher median incomes, and higher education attainment in 2010 than 1990, the overall support for WM has made opposition for the expansion difficult. These challenges are in addition to those already facing residents with the barriers to accessing the already limited public participation opportunities available. While community strategies have had some success challenging the barriers to meaningful public participation, they have been limited as less meaningful public participation procedures are found to be legal and more difficult to challenge. Kettleman City residents participating in public meetings in Kings County found the meetings not meaningful for them because they have not felt heard by the local government agencies, nor adequately represented by them. The lack of meaningful opportunities has not deterred the community groups from fighting to be included in these decisions, and their continued involvement demonstrates their determination to creating a more just process that meaningfully includes them in the procedures and outcomes. This determination is testament to their resilience, along with their ability to continually develop new strategies. What is surprising then is how with more strategies available to them and more government recognition of their challenges to being included in the permitting process, they were not successful opposing the expansion project. While community changes and the corporate sponsored organizer help explain part of why the strategies were limited in 2009 because of increased support for WM, they cannot explain why with increased knowledge of the health concerns in Kettleman City, environmental justice issues, and increased environmental justice policies at state and federal levels, the local, state, and federal government agencies permitted the project. 105 Chapter 4 References Alley, K., Faupel, C., & Bailey, C. (1995). The Historical Transformation of a Grassroots Environmental Group. Human Organization, 54(4), 410–416. Angel. (2015, June 9). 70 groups support Kettleman City civil rights complaint | Greenaction. Retrieved from http://greenaction.org/?p=2792 Barreto, M. A., Manzano, S., Ramírez, R., & Rim, K. (2009). Mobilization, Participation, and Solidaridad Latino Participation in the 2006 Immigration Protest Rallies. Urban Affairs Review, 44(5), 736–764. http://doi.org/10.1177/1078087409332925 Bayview Hunters Point Mothers Environmental Health and Justice Committee, Hunterview Tenants Association, & Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice. (2004). Pollution, Health, Environmental Racism and Injustice: A Toxic Inventory of Bayview hunters Point, San Francisco. The San Francisco Foundation. Retrieved from http://greenaction.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/TheStateoftheEnvironment090204Final Benford, R. (2005). The half-life of the environmental justice frame: innovation, diffusion, and stagnation. In Power, Justice, and the Environment. (pp. 37–54). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Botill, T. (2014, November 26). Operation Gobble. The Corcoran Journal. Corcoran, CA. Retrieved from http://thecorcoranjournal.net/page-one/story/354/operation-gobble Brostrom, I., & Nzegwu, M. (2010). Luke Cole, Social Justice Visionary. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 16(1), 241–244. Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2008). Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: Why Race Still Matters after all of These Years. Environmental Law, 38, 371. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (1993). Waste Discharge Requirements for Chemical Waste Management, INC. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, central Valley Region. Retrieved from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/kings/r5-2014- 0003 Cole, L. (1994). Environmental Justice Litigation: Another stone in David’s sling. Fordham Urb. LJ, 21, 523–545. _____. (1994b). Struggle of Kettleman City: Lessons for the Movement, The. Md. J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 5, 67. Cole, L. W., & Foster, S. R. (2001). From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement (First Edition). New York: NYU Press. Corcoran City Council. (2012, February 6). Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes. City of Corcoran. Retrieved from http://www.cityofcorcoran.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3131 CPS. (2013). Department of Toxic Substance Control Permitting Process Review and Analysis. Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) Consulting. CRPE. (2010, 2011). Our Founders. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.crpe- ej.org/crpe/index.php/about-us/who-we-are/our-founders Davidson, P., & Anderton, D. L. (2000). Demographics of dumping ii: a national environmental equity survey and the distribution of hazardous materials handlers. Demography, 37(4), 461– 466. DTSC. (2001, Revised). Department of Toxic Substances Control Public Participation Manual. State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control. _____. (2016). 2-Year Plan. Permitting Enhancement Work Plan. Department of Toxic Substance Control. 106 EDF. (1985). Nowhere to Go: The Universal Failure of Class I Hazardous Waste Dump Sites in California. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Toxics Assessment Group. EPA PCB Facts. (2016). Questions & Answers - PCBs | Region 9: Toxics | US EPA. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from https://www3.epa.gov/region9/pcbs/faq.html Fimrite, P. (2015, June 8). Housing blooms at last at once-toxic Hunters point shipyard site. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Housing-blooms-at-last-at-once-toxic-Hunters- 6314858.php Fulbright, L. (2006, May 15). Big victory for Hunters Point activists. SFGate. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Big-victory-for-Hunters-Point-activists-As- PG-E-2534998.php Griswold, L. (2010, March 18). California rural legal assistance | Earth First! Newswire. Retrieved from https://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/tag/california-rural-legal-assistance/ Hunter, L. M. (2000). The Spatial Association between U.S. Immigrant Residential Concentration and Environmental Hazards. The International Migration Review, 34(2), 460–488. Johnson, J. (2013, November 7). Tides shift in Tuesday election. Hanford Sentinel. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/tides-shift-in-tuesday-election/article_3353afc6-474a- 11e3-972a-0019bb2963f4.html Kings County Planning Commission (October 5, 2009). Kings County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. _____. (October 19, 2009). Kings County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. KHF. (2012, April 18). Press Release | Waste Management Kettleman Hills Facility and Kettleman City Youth to Participate in Great American Cleanup in Honor of Earth Day. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/press- room/2012/20120418_Great_American_Clean_Up.jsp _____. (2016a). About Us | Waste Management. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/about-us/index.jsp _____. (2016b). The Kettleman Hills Facility: There’s More Than You Know. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/index.jsp Kings County Association of Governments. (2010, July 28). 2011 Kings County Regional Transportation Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/2011_rtp Kings County Community Development Agency. (2009). Kettleman City Community Plan. Kings County. Retrieved from http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3130 Kumeh, T. (2007, November 2). Pass it on: Toxic waste moved from area to area. San Mateo County Times. LAC Meeting Minutes (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3490. 17 April. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3408. 8 May _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3404. 22 May. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3406. 29 May. 107 _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3410. 10 July. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3412. 14 August. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3414. 11 September. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3394. 20 October. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3400. 13 November. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3402. 11 December. _____. (2008). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3446. December 20. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3368. 8 January. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3488. 29 January. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3370. 5 February. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3372. 26 February. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3476. 5 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3478. 12 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3374. 19 March. _____. (2009). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3362. 9 April. Locke, S. (2006, April 1). Hunters Point Power Plant Controversy. Bay Nature. Retrieved from http://baynature.org/article/hunters-point-power-plant-controversy/ Lombardi, K., Buford, T., & Greene, R. (2015, August 3). Environmental racism persists, and the EPA is one reason why. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/03/17668/environmental-racism-persists-and-epa-one- reason-why Miller, E. (1992, March). Final Report: Waste Management. Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 405–430. Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor, M., & Sadd, J. (2001). Environmental justice and Southern California’s “riskscape” the distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among diverse communities. Urban Affairs Review, 36(4), 551–578. Nidever, S. (2013, March 28). Kettleman landfill slapped with $300K fine. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kettleman-landfill- slapped-with-k-fine/article_6c3eb9fe-97c1-11e2-ae3f-001a4bcf887a.html Osuna, P. (1985, August 21). Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 108 Pastor, M., Sadd, J., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(1), 1–21 Pellow, D. N. (2004). Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. MIT Press. Perkins, T. (2015, May 18). The Environmental Justice Legacy of the United Farm Workers of America. Retrieved from http://www.voicesfromthevalley.org/ Plevin, R. (2009). A heated public hearing. Vida en el valle blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.vidaenelvalle.com/blog/2009/10/06/video-a-heated-public-hearing/ Poalinelli, E. (2010, November 23). CWM Kettleman Hills Facility Air Monitoring. Ramakrishnan, S. (2005). Democracy in Immigrant America: Changing Demographics and Political Participation. Stanford University Press. Rechtschaffen, C. (2008). Fighting Back against a Power Plant: Some Lessons from the Legal and Organizing Efforts of the Bayview-Hunters Point Community. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 537. Regional Water Board. (2014, January). Regional Water Board Minutes. Roberts, J. T., & Toffolon-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline (First Printing edition). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Rodriguez, A. (2011, July 7). EPA sued over toxic waste dumps in California. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/07/local/la-me-dumps-suit-20110707. Szasz, A. (1994). EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice. U of Minnesota Press. UCC. (2007). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Commission for Racial Justice. United Church of Christ. US EPA. (1996). RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rules. _____. (2014). Plan EJ 2014 Environmental Justice Permitting Initiative. Walker, G. (2009). Beyond Distribution and Proximity: Exploring the Multiple Spatialities of Environmental Justice. Antipode, 41(4), 614–636. Walsh, E., Warland, R., & Smith, D. (1997). Don’t Burn it Here: Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators. Penn State University Press. Retrieved from http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-01663-4.html Ware, A. (2013, September 25). Kettleman City Community Services District. Wozniacka, G. (2010, August 25). Chemical Waste Management’s Kettleman City Landfill, Largest Toxic Dump in The West, Fined $1 Million By EPA. HuffPost San Francisco. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/chemical-waste-management- fined-epa_n_936456.html Yamashita, E. (2010, June 19). Civil rights complaint filed against Kings County. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/civil-rights- complaint-filed-against-kings-county/article_30a3f7ec-7b63-11df-9ea0-001cc4c03286.html _____. (2009, October 6). Anger erupts at landfill meeting. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. _____. (2012, May 26). Field trip for Kettleman students sparks controversy. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/field-trip-for- kettleman-students-sparks-controversy/article_770e4c26-a6d8-11e1-b56b-001a4bcf887a.html _____. (2009, October 6). Anger erupts at landfill meeting. The Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. 109 Chapter 5: Institutional Challenges to Achieving Environmental Justice “Current environmental decision-making operates at the junction of science, technology, economics, politics, special interest, and ethics, and mirrors the larger social milieu where discrimination is institutionalized.”- Robert Bullard (Bullard, 1994, pp. 12) Since 1993 when opponents of the incinerator project successfully stopped it from being built in Kettleman City, federal and state government agencies have created environmental justice committees, laws, working groups, and reports in direct recognition of environmental justice concerns. In 1993, Kettleman residents were successful with their lawsuit in a time of much less government acknowledgment and consideration for the disparate concentration of pollution in communities of color. Due to the environmental justice movement bringing increased public awareness of communities such as Warren County and Love Canal and the UCC report in 1987, the environmental justice movement was just gaining traction when the KHF incinerator was proposed in 1988. By 2005, when the expansion project was proposed, it would be expected that increased awareness and government action on environmental justice issues should be an advantage for Kettleman residents opposing the landfill expansion. Instead of being able to utilize the movement’s prior success, in 2009 the state government permitted the expansion and the community opponents lost their court appeals. In addition to broader acknowledgement of environmental justice issues, more was known about the environmental and health issues specifically facing Kettleman residents in 2009 than in 1993. Air and well water contamination, along with the birth defects cluster, are events that should have been evidence for not increasing air pollution in the community. With this knowledge of pollution and that the KHF would decrease the air quality, the question is not how were the residents of Kettleman City successful against the largest waste company in 1991, the question is why were Kettleman residents, with so much greater knowledge of the health concerns and broad government understanding of environmental justices issues after 1991, unsuccessful in stopping the state and county governments from approving the landfill expansion permits in 2009, 2010, and 2014. This lack of political change over time was not unique to Kettleman City. In 2007 the UCC released a new study 22 after their first report showing not only were pollution and toxic facilities still being located in predominantly communities of color, but the occurrences had increased with 80% of people of color living near hazardous waste sites in California- the state with the highest percentage (UCC, 2007). This report demonstrated the need to shift environmental justice research away from documenting these occurrences to questioning the underlying causes for the persistence of a pattern of environmental racism. Researchers have taken on this issue with much of their work looking at the decision-making process itself with power dynamics and issues of empowerment in the process (Arnstein, 1969; Sexton, 1999; Beirle, 1999; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Simmons, 2008). While these studies do get at an important issue of power dynamics in the process for environmental decisions, they miss a larger process that is the institutions and their role in these decisions, and the disadvantages institutionalized within the permitting process. To explain why the state and county agencies permitted a toxic facility’s expansion in an already environmentally burdened community, despite the increased awareness of environmental 110 justice issues, documented health problems, and engaged opponents, the institutions involved and the limitations to challenging them must be examined. Here, the county and state permit approvals were based on reviewing WM’s application for expanding the facility, but the decision was supported through citing the health and environmental justice reports. State officials have remarked that permitting the facility in Kettleman underwent the most thorough investigative process for considering health and environment, and with this thorough investigation, engaged community opponents, and documented environment and health concerns, the government permitted the project. One conclusion to be drawn from this permit approval decision is that the state investigated the facility thoroughly and found it safe to expand. Another way to interpret this decision, however, is that despite the thorough investigation and acknowledgment of health issues, the reliance on the county’s permit approval process, the lack of a single cause for the health problems, and limitations with environmental justice policies, as well as within DTSC, led DTSC to move forward permitting the expansion of the facility. The permitting process of expanding a toxic facility is then a legal and political process in that the state’s approval of a facility is supported through their interpretation of permitting, environmental, and environmental justice laws. These interpretations of the permitting process have created institutional barriers to challenging permitting decisions, but community opponents to these decisions have been successful in utilizing their own strategies to continue moving toward achieving environmental justice. This chapter highlights the persistent challenges and limitations for meaningful involvement for opposing projects that will increase pollution in low income, communities of color by examining the institutions that create barriers for communities to successfully oppose these decisions. These limitations include the ability to be meaningfully involved in the permitting process but also the limitations of health and environmental reports to support community concerns, and the limitations for challenging state permitting decisions. Considering the challenges communities face then reveals why environmental racism persists, and helps explain why even with increased knowledge of environmental and health concerns, engaged opponents of a project are failing to stop projects that state and county government acknowledge will increase pollution in an already overburdened community. Despite these limitations, however, community opponents and organizers have implemented political strategies targeting both improving the public participation process and the lack of equity in the permitting process. These strategies have proven successful for addressing these issues, and can provide examples for what works and what is limited for generating political support to address institutional barriers in the permitting process. Institutional barriers to using public participation in achieving environmental justice The broader recognition of environmental justice is one of the many changes that have occurred within the EPA and DTSC from 1991 to 2009. In 2014, CalEPA released an update to their Environmental Justice Program that opened with a quote form Aristotle stating, “Equals should be treated equally and unequal’s unequally.” They use this quote to demonstrate the justification of equal treatment before the law exemplified in their definition of environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (CalEPA, 2014, pg. 3). The US, however, is made up of a mixture of people from 111 different advantages and disadvantages, and they are not randomly distributed, but highly segregated by race, income, and subsequently place (Omi and Winnant, 1986; Massey and Denton, 1993; Frey and Myers, 2005; Wacquant, 2013). This segregation by race, income, and place means that people are not equal in that they are starting from different advantages and disadvantages. They are exposed to different environmental factors that produce health inequities that further deepen the social inequities among them, and assuming an equal playing field widens these gaps. It means that when people come to participate in a public meeting they arrive with different needs to be able to fully participate, to meaningfully participate, and even the best, most collaborative organization must recognize these needs as basic needs to participate fully, and not a special request or treatment. It is an unequal process that allows for an unequal treatment of some people by providing translations, more time to speak for translations, and accommodating location and time requests so that the people most impacted by the decision being determined can contribute fully and meaningfully in the process. Institutional racism in the public participation process Some of the challenges facing opponents to the landfill project are more than barriers to being meaningfully included in the permitting process, as they are examples of institutional racism within the public participation process. Institutional racism includes policies, practices, or procedures that disadvantage people based on race. Although it impacts individuals, its persistence does not require individual action. In this way, institutional racism exists within institutions without individuals intentionally perpetuating, but they do not have to because the system perpetuates it (Hamilton and Ture, 1967). Here institutional racism is evident with the permitting of the landfill expansion project through the use of unequal time for Spanish speakers to comment and challenges to the expectation of needing to comment in English. While the unequal time for Spanish and English speakers created a clear separate and unequal process for Spanish speakers, the expectation for English comments created subtler barriers to meaningful participation. At the December 2009 Kings County BOS meeting, Spanish speakers were allotted half the time for public comments as English speakers. The rational given for this unequal treatment was English speakers would receive five minutes, therefore Spanish speakers would receive two and a half minutes for comment and two and a half minutes of translation, giving both groups a total of five minutes. This act, while not intending to discriminate against Spanish speakers, demonstrates institutional racism in the public participation process. No one person was singled out or carried out an action to intentionally discriminate, but the process itself benefited English speakers by allowing them five full minutes to state a concern. In response to the fact Spanish speakers were not allowed an equal time to comment, DTSC responded, “it is reviewing these comments as part of the formal proceeding on the landfill expansion, and so declined to comment” (Chinn et al, 2014, pp. 39) Ultimately, DTSC director Barbara Lee stated in 2014 at a closed meeting between DTSC and the CEJC coalition that DTSC’s lawyers disagree equal time was not given because both groups (English and Spanish speakers) were allowed a total of five minutes. While Spanish translations of agendas and notices of meetings were made available for 112 some meetings, not all documents were translated for the expansion proposal. A Title VI complaint filed by CRPE and El Pueblo against the Kings County Board of Supervisors documented the issues with translation services facing opponents to the expansion project. This complaint alleged the BOS discriminated based on race and origin when permitting the KHF by forcing Kettleman residents to host a disproportionate share of environmental hazards located in Kings County, but by limiting their participation in the process. Here CRPE used evidence of the high percentage of Spanish speakers in Kettleman City and stated their requests for translated documented went unanswered (CRPE, 2011). Despite the evidence presented, the court did not sustain the complaint (Levy, 2012). This shows that although Spanish speakers were denied equal time in speaking and not all documents were translated so that all people regardless of language could participate, the process was found legally compliant. Although the 1991 lawsuit was found in favor of community opponents based on their lack of meaningful translation, 25 years later similar practices in the same process were found legal. Even when translation services were available, the expectation of English comments was made clear by government employees. An employee of one government agency, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), an agency that regulates the Kettleman Hills Facility, sent public emails in 2013 stating his opposition to allowing Spanish translations. In one email dated October 25, 2013 sent from CRWQCB employee James Dowell to DTSC employee Wayne Lorentzen, Dowell expressed his aversion to allowing Spanish translations by stating: Let us also be honest. Isn’t the official language of our country English. Then why don’t all people in this country communicate in English? I’ve personally attended meetings where I know that those that communicate in Spanish in the public hearings/meetings can perfectly speak English! What is the point of this deception? Anyone who can speak English should be required by law to address the public in English! What do you think we live in? Mexico? I though thought this was the United States of America where English is the official language! (Dowell, email, 2013) While Dowell did not appear to have any direct involvement with the KHF permitting, he requested to be present at a water board meeting held January 16, 2014 in Kettleman City. In this email request to be at the meeting, Dowell stated he worked for the state water board for 25 years, has more knowledge of the geology of the KHF than anyone in the state of California, and that “politics and political correctness has been used to delay the permitting process” (Dowell, email, 2014). These emails from a state employee reflect the sentiments toward even allowing Spanish comments, let alone equal time. While these comments from one person cannot be attributed to an entire state department, they do reflect the opinions of at least one employee who has worked with Kettleman City and within an agency regulating a hazardous facility there. While this perspective that everyone should speak English represents a challenge for Spanish speakers wishing to be engaged with the public participation process, other government institutions and agencies have presented their own set of barriers to challenging the permitting decisions. 113 Institutional barriers to challenging permitting decisions with DTSC While opponents faced challenges to their meaningful participation in the permitting process, they also faced barriers to challenging DTSC’s permit approval decision. DTSC provided multiple public participation opportunities for their role in permitting the KHF, and within this process are venues for challenging the decision. Despite opportunities for public participation and to challenge the permit decision, DTSC presented institutional barriers to being included in the process and to challenge their permit approval. These barriers included the use and reliance on the state health report, the adherence to environmental justice policies with colorblind language, the culture of DTSC, and the lack of constant permitting criteria. Together these barriers created challenged to opposing DTSC’s permit approval that help show why even with increased environmental justice awareness and knowledge of health concerns in Kettleman City, DTSC approved a facility expansion that would knowingly increase pollution in an already impacted community. Limitations of using health reports Local and state governments rely heavily on technical and planning documents, such as an EIR, to review permit applications for hazardous facilities, but one important factor in generating support for the KHF expansion came from the interpretation of government reports the KHF was safe for the community (Sahagun, 2014). From 2009 to 2013, DTSC, CalEPA, CDPH, and other state agencies produced at least 11 health and environmental reports for Kettleman City and the KHF, with another 4 released between 1997 and 2008, inclusive of 200812. These years 2009 to 2013 are notable because during this time Kings County and DTSC approved the permits for the landfill expansion. Of these 11 reports conducted between 2009 and 2013, the California Department of Public Health’s birth defects investigation reports are notable. The birth defects investigation studies were heavily cited as part of the extensive and thorough review for the permit process, and both DTSC and WM have since used these studies as evidence for support to approve the permit noting the facility is safe for the community (DTSC, May 2014). Although DTSC, WM, and Kings County officials have interpreted these reports as the KHF is safe and therefore safe to expand, the reports themselves do not claim the facility is safe, instead the authors of these studies concluded there are health and environmental issues that they cannot attribute to a single cause (CDPH, 2010). What is important to note is that although no study could identify a single cause of the health issues, Kings County Planning Commission did not have this knowledge when the Board 12 (1997) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalEPA (2004) Environmental Justice Action Plan, DTSC (2008) Environmental Justice Policy, US EPA (2008) Congener Study, (2010) California Regional Water Quality Control Board,, OEHHA (2010) Community Exposure Assessment, USEPA Region IX (2010) Air Emissions Study on KHF ponds, CDPH (2010) Investigation of Birth Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, CA, DTSC (2011) Health Risk Assessment of Kettleman City, US EPA (2011) Kettleman City Indoor Pesticide Study, CDPH (2011) Follow-Up to Kettleman City Investigation, DTSC (2012) Health Risk Assessment, DTSC (2013) Health Risk Assessment, EPA (2013) CalEnviroScreen Tool version 1.0, DTSC (2013) Initial study and addendum for the existing B-18 Landfill Expansion Project, DTSC (2013) Environmental Justice Review 114 of Supervisors approved the expansion in 2009. The information they had available was benzene and arsenic contaminated drinking water from unknown causes (LAFCo, 2007; CalEPA, July 2010; Kings County Board of Supervisors, 2013), high rates of asthma, cancers, and other illnesses (Kumeh, 2007), and information signaling a potential birth defects cluster (LAC Final Recommendations, 2009; Sahagun, 2009). Kings County permitted the facility in 2009 before the state agencies’ research showed they could not determine a single cause for the birth defects, or the elevated levels in the drinking water were likely naturally occurring because again, they could not conclusively find the origin (CDPH, 2010). Kings County made their decision before the reports were finalized because they were basing their decision on whether WM met the legal requirements for their permit application, a different set of standards than being able to determine if the facility is safe to expand. Community led Health Study In 2007 as a reaction to the EPA’s Draft Environmental Justice assessment, community residents and organizers conducted a door-to-door health study in Kettleman City (Interview, 2015). The 2007 EPA Draft Environmental Justice Assessment stated there was no negative impact from Kettleman hosting the hazardous facility or its expansion (CalEPA, 2007; Nidever, March 2007). This assessment angered residents and organizers because they lived with the negative impacts from the landfill, including the decreased air quality and home values, but they realized their experiences were not being documented. As one organizer and resident recalled: After that hearing (of the EPA Draft Environmental Justice Assessment) when we debriefed on our next step and people were talking about the asthma, the cancer, and none of it is documented. We decided to design a community health survey and made it as neutral as possible. (Charles, 46, community organizer) People were saying, "Oh. We know there's a lot of people in Kettleman City that are sick. There's a lot of people with asthma. There's a lot of people with cancer. We think it has to do with the dump." We said, "Well, why don't we do a health study? We go door-to-door and we'll ask people, then we could have actual members when we go to the meetings.” We just went door-to-door, asked people. What we started finding was we found a lot of asthma. We found certain people with cancer. But what we started to find was that there were children with birth defects. (Marina, 42, Kettleman City resident and organizer) Although the 2007 Draft Environmental Justice Assessment was the impetus for the community led study, the community documented more than they expected to find. While they were expecting to document asthma and cancer, they uncovered a previously unknown birth defects cluster. The same organizer stated: A few days in, one of our organizers called and said we found a couple of moms with babies born during the same time period with similar birth defects and the babies died. A couple of days later we found more, and we found originally 5 born with cleft pallet and they had other complications and 3 of the 5 died. We heard rumors, but there was a pattern in a certain time period. We took that to the government, to the press, and it 115 started getting a lot of attention. As we continued, more people came forward. Instead of 5 it was 11 then 14, all during a 14-month period, which coincided with the shipments, the massive 400-fold increase of PCBs to the landfill there. (Charles, 46, community organizer) Community residents and organizers began going public with their findings, and the media began writing and questioning what was happening in Kettleman City (Sahagun, 2009). The community used the media to push for a larger study to document and investigate the birth defects. Despite the difficulties of coming forward to speak out, mothers who had children born with birth defects or who had lost babies due to birth defects attended public meetings to request the county not expand the landfill, and that they conduct an investigation. Although the Kings County Health Department denied the request stating an investigation was not needed or warranted (Sahagun, March 2010), the issue caught the attention of California Senators Barbar Boxer and Diane Feinstein who released statements saying the KHF should not be allowed to expand until the state of California investigates the birth defects (Sahagun, February 2010). In 2010, then California Governor Schwarzenegger directed the California Department of Public Health to lead a full investigation into Kettleman City (CDPH, 2010). Schwarzenegger’s direction for the study was a win for Kettleman residents and organizers seeking answers, and it would not have happened, nor would the birth defects cluster have been known, if the community was not organized and led their own initial study. CDPH/Government led health studies There were multiple reports on birth defects in Kettleman City conducted in 2009 and 2010, with the final study titled, “Investigation of Birth Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, CA” released in December 2010. The investigation began, however, in 2009 with the purpose being to study the number of infants born with birth defects in Kettleman City in 2007 (CDPH and CBDMP, 2010). To conduct their analysis, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and California Birth Defects Monitoring Program (CBDMP) used aggregate year estimates to analyze the number of cases of babies born with birth defects from 1987 to March 2010, and the birth defects cluster was shown from 2007 to 2010 with 11 babies born in those 3 years (Table 14). This is a clear spike from the 6 born in the previous 20-year period. What this report concealed even with the 3-year estimate is that 8 were born in 2007 alone (Table 15). These initial findings led to further government led investigations with Kettleman City. Table 14: Birth Defects Count, Kettleman City 1987-2010 (aggregate years) Birth Year Number Cases of BD Number Births (+fetal deaths) 1987-1991 (5-yr) 5 264 1992-2006 (15-yr) 1 648 2007-March 2010 (4-yr) 11 148 (Data: CDPH and CBDMP, 2010) 116 Table 15: Two-year rates of birth defects for live and fetal deaths (per 100 births), 1987-201 Year Kettleman City Avenal Kings County Five Counties 1987 2.2 2.44 0.89 0.89 1988-1989 2.00 0.36 1.00 1.02 1990-1991 1.68 0.56 0.85 0.92 1992-1993 0 0.29 0.80 0.90 1994-1995 0 1.36 0.89 0.98 1996-1997 0 0.53 0.96 0.87 1998-1999 0 1.53 0.98 0.95 2000-2001 1.19 1.07 0.91 0.90 2002-2003 0 1.07 1.19 0.86 2004-2005 0 0.50 1.01 1.02 2006-2007 1.39 0.86 1.01 1.02 2008-2009 8.51 2.31 1.53 1.05 2010-2011 1.79 1.10 0.71 0.54 (Data: CDPH and CBDMP, 2010) While the initial study established rates and incidences of birth defects in Kettleman City, an additional CDPH study interviewed mothers who experienced a child with a birth defect and analyzed the surrounding environment for potential air, water, or land exposures (CDPH, 2010). Of the total potential cases identified with the initial study, CDPH concluded 11 were eligible for inclusion in the investigation, and of the 11, six moms were interviewed, with three declining and two unable to be reached. Although the community led health study identified five others, CDPH considered them ineligible because they were required to have lived in Kettleman City for at least seven days during the three months before they became pregnant (CDPH, 2010). These interviews were then analyzed with the environmental samples taken in Kettleman City to attempt to determine a cause for the birth defects. In the spring of 2010, CalEPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) took air samples from three locations in Kettleman City, as well as Bakersfield, CA and Fresno, CA to use as comparisons. While ARB collected the air samples and analyzed them, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards (OEHHA) interpreted the results. The OEHHA report showed they did not find any hazardous materials in the community that posed a threat to human health, but they noted the potential gaps in their data. These gaps with the samples include the representativeness of the samples, the potential for cumulative impacts, and the risk variation. The representativeness of the samples is a limitation because samples were only taken at three locations and could vary based on location. The cumulative impacts, or the combined presence of chemicals or multiple chemical exposures, can impact communities in unknown ways, which were not tested for in this investigation. For example, the air and water qualities were tested individually, but it is unknown how both poor water and air quality impact Kettleman residents. The third limitation, the risk variation is the difference, such as age, sex, and occupation could create different risk factors and levels of tolerance, (CDPH, 2010). While the investigation did include the testing for air quality, the limitations in their analysis make conclusive findings difficult. 117 In addition to these limitations noted by the researchers, Daniel Wartenberg, an epidemiologist involved with the CDPH study, published an article in 1990 (Wartenberg and Greenberg, 1990) on the ability of statistics to detect disease clusters. Their findings show the two most common methods for assessing disease clusters have “low power” for the small numbers typically seen with disease clusters. This low power means small numbers and low statistical power make the probability of false negative really high. This shows that even if there were a relationship between the KHF and the increased rates of birth defects, the lack of statistical power due to the relatively small number of cases, would make it impossible to detect that connection. In 2010, CDPH held a public meeting in Kettleman City to announce their findings, but instead of receiving answers, the community was told they were unsure why it happened, they could not determine an underlying cause, and the “types of birth defects in Kettleman City did not appear different from birth defects seen by CDPH elsewhere” (CDPH, 2010; Sahagun, November 2010; Yamashita, November 2010). This left residents, especially the mothers of the children, more confused than before the investigation because they were hearing the most thorough investigation could not explain what happened, and that it was expected because of where they lived (Interview, 2015). While this investigation was needed to determine the cause of the birth defects cluster, the lack of clear findings left mothers, residents, and organizers distraught with the idea that even the state with their most extensive studies could not find a cause. When asked about their involvement with the CDPH study, one organizer recalled: With the EPA and the birth defect monitoring program, people have a lot of hope around when a state study happens or a government agency becomes involved. There is some hope there will finally be some answers and some accountability. I think the attitude is always of hope. As the study was happening, my perspective and those of some others, was quite nervous because people put so much stock in having an independent agency come in, but when you look at the results of the history of these types of studies in California, and probably nationwide, there has virtually never been a finding that satisfied the community…All you have is a loss of hope, a loss of answers, and it was their only hope for answers or change in policy or protection from the hazardous waste facility. (Ana, 34, Community advocate) Here the study unable to point to a single cause or explanation left those who had experienced birth defects, or just seeking answers without hope for finding a cause. For the mothers who had babies born with birth defects, they had the difficulty of not knowing what happened, but then some had to face public meetings where they were ridiculed and harassed. In an interview with one of the mothers who lost a child due to birth defects complications and was one of the six DCPH interviewed, she remembered: It was a big disillusion. They were listening but it was a big disillusion. They just went and heard, but didn’t do anything. (Dana, 29, Kettleman City resident) She also attended the Board of Supervisors meeting to approve the expansion permit in 2009 and recalled her experience: 118 It was a really bad experience starting with not having the same time as English speakers, but also hearing the people from the company (WM) talking about the children with birth defects, making fun of them. They said how was it their fault (WM), how were they responsible their kids were born like monsters. They thought my husband didn’t speak English, but he could understand everything they were saying. (Dana, 29, Kettleman City resident) The lack of explanation, coupled with WM employee’s negative statements about the birth defects cluster left people disillusioned with the process, as well as hope for answers. In approving the permits, however, DTSC called this process the most extensive. This shows that even the most extensive studies, when having to rely on small sample sizes, cannot always reveal explanations for what people are experiencing. The issue then is the reliance on studies with small sample sizes to permit a facility as safe. In this way, health reports can be used against a small community with health issues and environmental concerns, if the lack of a cause for a documented health issue is used to interpret an environmental hazard as safe. Colorblind environmental justice policies In addition to limitations with using the health reports as evidence for denying the expansion permit, the environmental justice reports were used to show the KHF had no significant impact on the community. These two environmental justice reports, published in 2007 and 2013 became contentious for community opponents of the landfill expansion. Opponents to the landfill expansion questioned the 2007 assessment showing the KHF had no impact on the community (Nidever, March 2007b), and DTSC cited their 2013 review as part of the extensive review process in their decision to approve the facility’s expansion permit (DTSC May 2014). The 2007 assessment is no longer available from the EPA as their website states: “Because certain information and conclusions in the Draft 2007 Assessment are out of date and should not be cited, EPA has removed the Assessment from the website” (https://www3.epa.gov/region9/kettleman/), and the 2007 assessment has been replaced with the 2013 Environmental justice review. While this report acknowledges the multiple environmental hazards and negative impacts in Kettleman City (DTSC, June 2013) it also reveals a main limitation to challenging issues of environmental justice. This limitation is the race neutral or colorblind language of environmental justice definitions that make challenges to environmental justice issues difficult with both government agencies and Title VI lawsuits. DTSC’s environmental justice In 2013 DTSC conducted an Environmental Justice Review to identify and address environmental justice concerns related to the KHF, as well as assess potential harmful offsite impacts and existing environmental burdens for the residents of Kettleman City (DTSC, June 2013). The report opens by defining environmental justice as, “The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws and policies” (DTSC, June 2013, pp. 5). They add that 119 DTSC defines environmental justice as “equal application of environmental protection for all communities and citizens without regard to race, national origin or income. (Their emphasis) (DTSC, June 2013, pp. 5). This definition of environmental justice is race neutral or with colorblind language in that the definition does not include the consideration of race. Colorblind language is then policies, practices, or processes that operate under an assumption that the best pathway for countering individual racism is to invoke actions that do not consider race (Carr, 1997; Gallagher, 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2006). While the best intentions may be within these colorblind policies, critical race theorists have demonstrated this approach will not be able to counter the systemic institutional forms of racism that persist within the U.S.’ social, political, and economic structures (Bell, 1995; Crenshaw, 1995; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012). While a requirement to end individual level racism, colorblind policies cannot move toward ending institutional racism. What is needed to counter the institutional level racism found in environmental racism is to be able to consider race in environmental decisions that will have a disparate impact on communities of color. By not including race in these decisions, the current environmental justice policies reproduce the existing structures that concentrate pollution in low-income communities of color, but considering race would allow for government agencies to make environmental decisions moving toward achieving environmental justice. This use of colorblind language in environmental justice definitions is not only a limitation for government definitions, but a limitation of the movement as well. As the framing of a movement is important to identifying problems, it is also important for identifying solutions based on these problems (Taylor, 2000; Brulle and Pellow, 2006). Although the environmental justice movement began with the recognition of environmental racism (UCC, 1983), the word racism was replaced with justice (Bryant, 1995; Pellow, 2004). The difference between these two frames is the difference between targeting racism or justice, as combatting different types of racism require different strategies, so does injustice. While acknowledged the environmental racism frame was limited in garnering broad support (Brulle and Pellow, 2005, the environmental justice frame has been interpreted as justice through equality of process or procedural equality. While the movement under the justice frame was able to generate support from a broader coalition of groups, the omission of race leaves the causes more abstract and therefore more difficult to target (Pellow and Brulle, 2005). In addition to omitting race from the movement, the lack of nuanced understanding of forms of racism, individual, institutional, and structural, leaves government agencies defaulting to Title VI language, which was designed for addressing individual level racism requiring intent. The use of colorblind policies that claim to not see or consider race are having a negative impact on people of color as they create a system of equal treatment that widens existing inequities (Brown et al, 2003; Gallagher, 2003). When planners invoke colorblind language in planning practices, they are making people of color invisible in the planning process, and when environmental justice policies use colorblind language they make it difficult to achieve environmental justice. 120 Limitations using Title VI DTSC’s definition of environmental justice is drawn from Civil Rights language originally designed to combat individual racism by prohibiting the consideration of race in policies, practices, and decisions. What this has meant today is using Title VI from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to challenge a decision that will have a disparate impact on communities of color is difficult. This difficulty stems from the requirement to show intent or intentional racism (Mattheisen, 2003). A 2001 court case, Alexander v. Sandoval resulted in a decision stating the Civil Rights of 1964 only applies to intentional discrimination, “as it reaches no further than the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause or the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause” (Mattheisen, 2003). This reliance on intentional discrimination presents a barrier to using Title VI with more institutional forms of racism as intention does not exist, but its the discriminatory outcome that persists. In addition to the requirement for showing intent, Title VI is also limited by its focus on procedures or process. Although Title VI has been used to challenge decisions that communities believe target them or increase already numerous environmental burdens in communities of color (Ramo, 2013), a core issue with using Title VI is the interpretation of defining environmental justice. Government definitions of environmental justice include language of fair treatment and meaningful involvement, but communities dealing with environmental justice issues define it as the right to a healthy environment (Brulle and Pellow, 2006). The difference here is the government’s focus on the procedural aspects of environmental and planning decisions, whereas community residents focus on the outcomes of these decisions. The problem then is the government’s definition, the legal definition, is decided on equal treatment, but what is needed for achieving environmental justice is a focus on equitable outcomes. This difference in definitions highlights the difference in methods for achieving environmental justice and combatting different forms of racism. It is the difference between equality where everyone receives the same treatment and equity where some people require different treatment to achieve a fair outcome (Morgan and Sawyer, 1979). It is these clarifications in definitions, the focus on process versus outcomes, and the difference in equality and equity that impact environmental decisions and explains why even with the proliferation of environmental justice reports, staff, committees, and working groups dedicated to creating healthier places, the statistics showing air, land, and water pollution disproportionally burdening communities of color has remained the same and in some cases worsened (UCC, 2007). Even when Title VI has been used to challenge environmental decisions, the lack of movement on these claims makes the EPA another barrier to achieving environmental justice. In 2015 The Center for Public Integrity published a report showing in a 22-year history of processing complaints, the EPA’s Civil Rights Office has never once made a formal finding of a Title VI violation (Lombardi, 2015). The Center for Public Integrity’s report used the 265 Title VI complaints filed between 1996 and 2013 to show a majority of these claims (9 out of 10) were rejected or dismissed. Of the total number of complaints, 162 (64%) were rejected without investigation, 52 (21%) were dismissed upon investigation, 14 (5.5%) were referred to other agencies, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), 12 (5%) were resolved voluntarily with an informal agreement, and 13 (5%) were accepted for investigation that are still open, the oldest that is still open being from 1996. The majority of those dismissed (95) were due to the target not receiving federal funding, 62 were submitted after the 180-day time frame and considered “too 121 late for action,” and 52 were dismissed for “insufficient claims.” Once a claim is filed the EPA must decide whether to investigate within twenty days, but 9 in 17 years took 254 days to respond. This led to the dismissal of at least one claim because it surpassed the 180-day limitation deeming the complaint “too late for action.” This research shows the barriers facing community opponents attempting to challenge EPA’s permitting decisions with Title VI, but these difficulties run deep within these institutions (Lombardi, 2015). In 1994 CRPE filed a Title VI claim with the EPA for their permitting of the only three hazardous waste landfills in California in low-income communities of color (Cole, 1994). It took the EPA 18 years to respond to the 1994 complaint, and although the EPA ultimately rejected the claim in 2012, they did assert there were “shortcomings in DTSC’s public outreach” (Chinn et al, 2014, pp. 36). Again, in 2010, CPRE filed another Title VI claim against Kings County based on the permitting process for the expansion that was ultimately deferred on the grounds that Kings County did not meet jurisdictional requirements as the Board of Supervisors was not a recipient of federal money (Levy, 2012). While the Title VI claims were not accepted, they paved the way for improved public participation opportunities by DTSC (CalEPA and DTSC, May 2013). This improved public participation plan resulted in more than just an increase of opportunities, but the access to DTSC staff, including high-up staff, such as the director. Despite the increased access to DTSC staff and improvements to public participation, DTSC approved the expansion permit. DTSC’s approval of the permit was based on their rigorous review of the application, but there are many challenges with DTSC as an institution, as well as barriers to challenging DTSC. Culture of DTSC As the main regulating agency for hazardous waste in California, DTSC oversees 117 hazardous waste management facilities and 900 hazardous waste transporters in California. In this mission of overseeing facilities, DTSC has faced challenges with their own culture that includes levying fines, enforcing laws, issues with DTSC staff having seemingly or real conflicts of interests, and a thread of racist emails between DTSC employees. These challenges within DTSC represent issues with the culture of the agency to fulfill their goal to protect environment and people from hazardous waste, but also act as barriers to challenging permitting decisions. One 2013 report, Golden Wasteland, provides evidence showing where DTSC is failing to protect people and the environment, and cites their business friendly culture as a main culprit (Tucker, 2014). Using data from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), toxic releases increased in 2011, and although pollution in the air declined in 2011, releases into the water and soil increased by 10% (Tucker, 2014). According the Golden Wasteland authors, the issue is not the current laws, which are some of the strictest in the US, but the lack of enforcement. Even within the organization enforcing the environmental laws, DTSC collects fewer fines than other agencies, such as the Air Resources Board (ARB). It is this lack of enforcement on fines that led the Golden Wasteland researchers to conclude DTSC is failing in their mission to protect human health of all Californians, but they reveal DTSC’s shortcomings in their mission are deeper, and more institutionalized than fines (Tucker, 2014). Golden Wasteland researchers interviewed DTSC employees, all of whom expressed they believe DTSC “puts vulnerable communities last” (Tucker, 2014, pp. 6). They show DTSC does 122 this by not levying maximum fines for polluters and violators and allowing companies to operate on expired permits. This lack of enforcement within DTSC, however, is not due to the organization’s ability to enforce. DTSC is a powerful organization, the only one under CalEPA with an office of criminal investigation and the ability to gather documents, environmental samples, sanction companies, and revoke or deny permits. DTSC rarely uses this power, and instead DTSC regulators expressed concerns that companies like the KHF will leave California if they are not allowed to expand. One DTSC employee stated, “There is a culture here and it’s to be user friendly. It makes the world go around if you get along with business.” (Tucker, 2014 pp. 15) This user friendly mentality is “business friendly”, and when the businesses you are regulating are toxic and polluting industries, business friendly equates to polluter friendly, not even close to DTSC’s mission for protecting human health. This business forward approach leads to questioning who has power in DTSC, and while many would assume the DTSC director is the most powerful, the Golden Wasteland authors say the power lies with then chief deputy director Odette Madriago. Madriago served as the chief deputy director at DTSC for 28 years from 1985 to 2013, and she resigned in 2013 one week after the Fair Practices Commission (FPPC) launched an investigation into her stock holdings. The FPPC investigation revealed Madriago held stock in companies regulated by DTSC, and at the time of the investigation she had $100,000 invested into Chevron, and over $1 million in PG&E (Nguyen et al, May 2013). In 2013, while Madriago held Chevron stock, the Richmond Chevron refinery had a fire where DTSC decided not to issue any fines (Nguyen et al, April 2013). When DTSC was later investigated for their lack of action on the Chevron fire, the agency claimed it was not their responsibility, but was a local air pollution issue. DTSC claimed the lead agency for the fire was Contra Costa Health Services and the Bay Area Quality Management District (Chinn et al, 2013), despite holding a permit from DTSC. Additionally, they noted the California Health and Safety code explicitly exclude petroleum products from the definition of hazardous waste (Chinn et al, 2013). What is misleading about this statement is DTSC permits the facility, and the most recent 2006 draft permit for comment included in the title, “Draft Hazardous Waste Permit Renewal for Chevron’s Richmond Refinery” (DTSC, April 2006). In the document DTSC describes the facility as a “petroleum refinery that produces a broad range of petroleum products…” (DTSC, April 2006, pp. 1). If DTSC is responsible for approving a hazardous waste permit for the facility, it should be able to levy fines against the company. They stated they did not pursue these fines because other agencies were taking action, such as CalOSHA levying “its largest fine ever” of $963,000 (Chinn et al, 2013, pp. 15). Commendable as the largest fine ever is, according to Chevron’s 2009 Annual report, Chevron had US earnings of $7.1 billion in 2008 (Chevron, 2009). While the motive for DTSC’s decision not to fine Chevron cannot be ascertained, the organization’s public announcement was they lacked the authority to fine the company (Chinn et al, 2013), despite the agency permitting the facility and being the largest regulator of hazardous waste. The issue of DTSC staff being involved with the companies they regulate is not confined to this one office. Peter Weiner, a former DTSC employee served as the former special assistant to Governor Jerry Brown for DTSC (Weiner, 2016). Weiner participated in drafting over 25 California state environmental laws, including the Superfund Law and is a current member of numerous DTSC committees. In 2009 Weiner joined legal counsel for Boeing, a company heavily regulated by DTSC and became involved with a current superfund cleanup with the 123 Santa Susana field in Southern California (EnviroReporter, 2012). While there is no evidence Weiner attempted to use his former DTSC position to influence policy, another former state employee, Winston Hickox, did attempt to use his previous EPA employment connections to further the interest of private corporation, CE2 Carbon Capital. Hickox was the state secretary of the CalEPA from 1999 to 2003, and is now a registered lobbyist with California Strategies LLC (McGreevy, 2013). According to the SOOO report and a 2013 Sacramento Bee article titled, “FPPC fines Kinney, Areias, and Hickox for Covert Lobbying,” the FPPC fined Hickox $12,000 for “crossing the line between policy consulting and lobbying” (Rosenhall, 2013). He crossed this line by “trying to influence administrative actions before the Air Resources Board (ARB),” the agency the SOOO regards as having more responsibility and power than DTSC (Rosenhall, 2013). Although DTSC did not respond directly to Hickox being investigated and fined, in the SOOO report DTSC did state former employees have a right to gainful, legal employment (Chinn et al, 2014). This employment of former state agency officials now representing the private industries they once regulated creates an appearance of conflict of interests. In some cases it can create institutional challenges for communities to challenge these permitting decisions if those writing the laws to protect human health are defending the companies creating the pollution. Not everyone views DTSC as having failed in their mission. A 2014 report conducted in direct response to Consumer Watchdog’s Golden Wasteland report attempts to refute many of their claims and evidence (Chinn et al, 2014). Golden Wasteland caught the attention of three California Senators who requested the Senate of Office of Oversight and Outcomes (SOOO) review Consumer Watchdog’s claims. The SOOO found some of the Golden Wasteland claims to be true and others to be incorrect or misleading, but a review of their report, “Fact Check: Despite Failures by State’s Toxics Regulator, Many Recent Criticisms Unfounded” showed the SOOO merely has different interpretation of the reports evidence. Regarding the increase of TRIs, the SOOO acknowledges the increase of chemicals, but they state: DTSC does have some responsibility for trying to reduce overall toxic releases by, for instance, encouraging “greener” products and processes. But to a large extent, the department has little direct influence over many toxic releases, which may reflect economic trends or practices in a particular industrial sector (Chinn et al, 2014, pp. 4). So while SOO will agree the toxic release increased, they do not believe this evidence DTSC has failed in its mission because they do not believe DTSC is responsible for this oversight. They note that DTSC regulates management of hazardous waste, but not the creation, although this is an interpretation of their role in managing hazardous waste (Chinn et al, 2014). While they may not legally oversee the creation of hazardous waste, they are responsible for ensuring it’s handled in a safe manner, which includes disposal and management. Whether DTSC is responsible for regulating the management or creation of hazardous waste their unwillingness to engage with the discussion on hazardous waste facilities increasing pollution appears to the public as if they are passing off an important topic away from their agency and simply saying it’s not their job. In response to DTSC collecting fewer or lesser amounts in fines than ARB, the SOOO argues the ARB has “far greater responsibilities” than DTSC as evidenced by the amount of money each agency spent employing workers showing ARB outspent DTSC by 64% in the 124 2012-2013 fiscal year. Later in the report, one DTSC employee (Racy Leclerc, assistant deputy director of environmental restoration) stated the very reason they haven’t pursued more investigations into the 194 cases listed as inactive, or those not being actively pursued, is due to their limited staff. It is important to note these inactive cases are not pursued due to staffing limitations, and not because they are not important, a potential threat to health, or DTSC’s responsibility. The SOOO then claims DTSC collects fewer fines because they have less responsibility as evidenced by their smaller staff than ARB, but then also claim they cannot pursue all of the corrective actions listed on Envirostor website because of their limited staff. This circular argument then again passes the responsibility of enforcement and investigation to other unknown agencies (Chinn et al, 2014). The document engages directly with the claims against the permitting of KHF expansion due to the lack of public participation, the inadequate birth defects study, and the permitting of a serial violator facility. Here the SOOO attempts to show all of these claims unfounded. While they provide evidence for a different interpretation of the events or definitions, the SOOO does not provide sufficient evidence to refute the Golden Wasteland claims. For example, SOOO states DTSC does not define the KHF as a serial violator, which according to DTSC’s Fact Sheet on the approval of the KHF, because “there have been long stretched of time without violation.” Serial violator then is not based on the severity of the violations, but how frequently these violations occur. This definition makes it difficult to define any facility as a serial violator because inspections are not frequent, and as DTSC has already stated, they lack the staff to follow up on all corrections (Chinn et al, 2014). Together DTSC’s lack of taking responsibility for hazardous waste issues along with staff entangled in business with the companies they are regulating creates barriers to challenging their permitting decisions. If it is unclear from the beginning of the process who is making these decisions and how, then community residents, even when fully engaged in the process cannot be expected to know where to go to oppose the decision. While permitting the KHF, DTSC followed the legal requirements for replying to public comments and even held additional meetings to discuss concerns with residents, but ultimately they decided to approve the permit siting the state health studies and their own environmental justice report. More recently, a thread of racist emails sent between two DTSC employees has called into question the culture of DTSC. In late 2015, Consumer Watchdog discovered a series of racist emails between two DTSC employees, a toxicologist and senior geologist, in a batch of documents they received under a records request (Ortiz, 2015). Consumer Watchdog then released the emails on their website and called for the employees’ resignation. The emails contain racist jokes and comments that make fun of people living in the sites these two government officials were meant to be overseeing. Although the actions were condemned by DTSC director Barbara Lee (McGreevy, 2015) the employees were allowed to keep their positions with DTSC and many people in communities requiring DTSC regulation then saw this as confirmation of what they only speculated at the agency (Aguilera, 2015). One member from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice stated in an interview that these emails demonstrate the disturbing culture at DTSC (Bogado, 2015). The interviewee continued: 125 There is a very deep problem in the department (DTSC); its been allowed to fester and create a culture that doesn’t take seriously the health of people living near these sites. If you had people doing their jobs who felt those people were important and deserved protection, the conclusions would be very different. We want a full investigation that can restore faith that the department will do what its supposed to do at every level (Bogado, 2015, pp. 1). Together, these DTSC employee actions reflect a culture of DTSC that has appeared to not fully support the communities they are charged to protect. The lack of enforcement and levying fines, the seemingly conflicts of interests between staff and the industries they regulate as well as staff who now work for these industries, and the recent surfacing of racism in emails demonstrate a culture within an government agency that needs to be more supportive of the communities they protect. From an outsider’s perspective, DTSC can appear to protect the industries they regulate, and not communities. These issues within DTSC are known throughout communities in California, but with government agencies as well. As one government official stated: The entire DTSC system is broken by accepting bad studies, never deny permits, and approving permits with old data. Their staff is limited by time and money, and they have marketing backgrounds. DTSC is worse than other agencies because of their organizational dysfunction. They have issues that have nothing to do with permitting; they need organizational change. (Ryan, 56, state government official) This government official’s perspective on DTSC’s organizational issues demonstrates what many community residents also believe to be a problem. The problem with this image of DTSC’s culture is beyond the permitting issues in that some employee have acted in a way causing communities and other government employees to lose trust in the agency. This culture of DTSC that appears to protect the industries they regulate over communities is detrimental to achieving environmental justice, has led people to question DTSC’s motives, and has created barriers for these communities to challenge DTSC’s decisions. DTSC’s lack of permitting criteria In 2013, DTSC hired Cooperative Personnel Services (CPD) to conduct a review and analysis of their permitting process. CPS’ findings showed DTSC had unclear standards for denying and revoking permits, the need for improving their public participation, as well as a lack of standardization in permitting procedures (CPS HR Consulting, 2013). The report cited the “significant dissatisfaction” with the permitting office and the need to create clear criteria for denying permits and violations from stakeholders, and the need to address the perception DTSC does not deny or revoke permits (CPS HR Consulting, 2013, pp. 4). This sentiment that due to DTSC’s lack of criteria for permitting they do not deny or revoke permits is seen with multiple community organizations in their critique of DTSC (Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, June 2014; CRPE, March 2016). This lack of permitting criteria looks to those outside the agency that DTSC is approving permits without clear criteria. In a petition for review written on behalf of the KHF expansion permit, Greenaction drew on DTSC’s formal acknowledgment of lacking permitting criteria, but they were approving the permit anyway (Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, June 2014). In 2013, the year before DTSC approved the 126 permit for the KHF expansion, then DTSC director, Debbie Raphael, stated in an interview, “We have a permitting system that is in need of some improvement” and “I would suggest and agree our permitting program is not operating as it should be” (Nguyen et al, 2013,pp.1). Raphael’s comments would then lend evidence to not only improve the process, but also not approve permits during the review. The action to permit facilities during a review of the permitting process did not appear favorably to the public. While this review was necessary for improving the process and restoring trust in the agency, their decision to approve permits during a permit review appeared to not have the impacted community, Kettleman City, in mind. From the CPS review and findings, DTSC then developed a two-year permitting enhancement. This plan encompassed 86 action items under 10 goals that included defining the process, establishing metrics, standardizing reviews, informing the public, enforcement enhancements, and identifying environmental justice concerns early (DTSC, November 2014). As of April 2015, DTSC stated they have “made significant progress” based on recognition from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, drafting role and responsibilities documents, and finalized agreement to begin modernizing their public participation process, among others (DTSC, April 2015). Despite their statements of an improved process, the new permitting criteria have yet to be tested with environmental justice communities. Also, many of the current environmental hazardous and toxic facilities that already exist were permitted under the old system, which lacked criteria for denying permits. This lack of criteria has been a challenge for communities seeking environmental justice, and it remains to be seen if the new permitting plan can better support these communities with clearer standards and procedures. Community actions to overcoming limitations with public participation and challenging DTSC While there have been barriers to using public participation for achieving environmental justice and challenging DTSC’s permitting decision, community organizations and coalitions have been successful in creating political change that is a step closer to achieving environmental justice. These actions have targeted both improving the public participation process at the state level and targeting equity in the permitting process. Together organizations and coalitions have engendered legislation that has led to DTSC reviewing their public participation process, giving equal time for Spanish speakers at public meetings, and DTSC’s permitting process. This legislation led by community groups is clear evidence for the success of these organizations in reforming different aspects of the hazardous facility permitting process. Although this legislation does not address all of the barriers to meaningful public participation or issues with DTSC, it supports communities in their fight for achieving environmental justice. Targeting improving public participation Two different coalition groups in California adopted campaigns to reform DTSC (CEJC, 2014; CEJA, 2015), with one specifically focusing on DTSC’s public participation process. The 127 California Environmental Justice Coalition (CEJC) formed in July 2014 and held their inaugural meeting in Kettleman City with 55 grassroots organizations in attendance (cejcoaltion.org). At this meeting, the coalition voted to adopt a campaign to reform DTSC with a focus on their public participation process.13 At the December 2014 quarterly meeting, DTSC unveiled their plan for reviewing and updating their public participation process at a meeting in Sacramento (Marxen, 2014). At this meeting, DTSC presented recommendations for their permitting enhancement work plan, along with the need for developing new public engagement strategies that would start earlier and better reflect community input in findings with the goal of “building better trust with communities.” The presenters also stated DTSC’s public participation tools were out of date, for example the use of newspapers instead of Internet based communications. While during this meeting DTSC did not state their reasons for this review in the meeting, a government official stated: It was a long time coming. There have been a lot of observations that communities have changed, that the public has changed. We have a lot of old statutes that were created around environmental programs in the 80s, but that was a different time. We weren’t discussing environmental justice. We were still with a very 1960s and 70s environmental focus and what the community-government relationship looked like. It served its purpose for a time (those relationship structures) but the structure was not flexible. (Mark, 46, state government official) This recognition for the need to reform the public participation process occurred through the acknowledgment that the current methods were not serving communities, but also from the CPS report on the permitting process (CPS HR Consulting, 2013). This report demonstrated the need for improved public outreach and engagement, and the same government employee continued that, “Basically, the community found that the old ways were not working for them anymore.” This finding for improving the public participation process was then brought about through community interviews and recommendations. In 2014, DTSC contracted with UC Davis to address these concerns for an improved public participation process. UC Davis researchers began their outreach to stakeholders, impacted community members, and department staff. In total 25 individuals were interviewed between July and August of 2015 for this review. These interviews confirmed many of permit review finding in that there is a general distrust of the decision making process, a lack of meaningful public participation opportunities, lack of confidence with state employees. From their finding Davis researchers assembled a list of potential actions for DTSC to improve their public participation process that included early outreach and enhancing relationships (UC Davis Extension, 2016). While the recommendations listed do not seem very different from those made by DTSC at their December 2014 meeting, they are also only recommendations. DTSC can decide which to implement or integrate into the new public participation plan, which as of July 2016, they have not released. 13 See chapter 4 for more information on CEJC and their inaugural meeting. 128 Targeting equity in the permitting process In addition to focusing on reform within the public participation process, community groups have supported legislation that targets equity in the permitting process. This legislation included bills addressing the lack of equal time in the public participation process for Spanish speakers, the lack of permitting criteria for denying permits, and increasing representation on regulating boards. SB 965 & AB 1330 In 2012, California Senator Wright authored legislation that would allow Spanish speakers equitable time to speak at public meetings (Wright, 2012). This bill, SB 965 (Wright), was in direct recognition that requiring Spanish comments only half the time as English speakers is part of an unfair process, and to achieve an equal process an unequal amount of time must be allowed. The main limitation of this bill, however, is that is only applies to one agency, the California State Water Board. To attempt to capture the momentum on this issue, the following year assembly member Perez authored AB 1330, a bill that would extend these policies to the wider state of California AB 1330 went through many versions and readings, but ultimately it did not pass through the Senate committee (Perez, 2014). The People’s Senate, SB 812 & SB 673 In 2014 CRPE took an active stance against pushing back against the disparate siting of hazardous facilities by bringing together affected communities throughout California. By bringing people together, CRPE worked with communities to help them define the issues within their communities, find commonalities among their issues, and determine how to best address them. From these meetings with community members came a report that was meant to give a voice to those most impacted by DTSC’s regulations in reforming DTSC. This collaborative group of community members became known as the People’s Senate, and their report has been used as evidence in reforming DTSC (CRPE, 2014). In the same year the People’s Senate was formed, California Senator de Leon authored SB 812, a bill focused on reforming DTSC that included parts of the People’s Senate report (CRPE, September 2014). Specifically, SB 812 would require DTSC to adopt criteria for permitting, as well as set deadlines for processing facility applications (Senate Rules Committee, 2014). While the bill passed through the Senate and Assembly, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill by not signing it. In his veto message Brown acknowledged DTSC needs more oversight, but stated the bill needs different language (Barboza, 2014). A year later the group worked with legislatures to edit the bill and in 2015 Senator Lara introduced new language under SB 673. Jerry Brown signed this bill that now requires DTSC to consider permitting criteria for denying or revoking permits that includes the impacted communities’ vulnerability (Lara, October 2015). Although the KHF expansion was approved before SB 673 was signed, the site will be subject to this new legislation in 2023 when their permits come up for review. 129 AB 1075 & AB 1288 In 2015, two other bills passed that will affect communities like Kettleman City who host hazardous facilities or are low-income communities of color. AB 1075 (Alejo) requires DTSC to revoke the permit of a hazardous waste facility after three violations within a five-year period. These violations have to be serious enough to pose a threat to public health, which not all violations are considered a threat to human health. AB 1288 (Atkins) requires an addition two environmental justice representative on the California Air Resources Board (CARB). These two representatives must be from impacted communities or work with low-income communities of color. This victory for adding environmental justice representatives on an air monitoring board has potential for improved representation of impacted communities with environmental and permitting decisions (CRPE, 2015). These bills are legal wins for environmental justice communities, especially those near hazardous waste sites. These legislative changes are examples of how community groups have successfully used the law in their favor to support working toward achieving environmental justice, but a lot is up to how CalEPA and DTSC will interpret and implement these laws. The interpretation and implementation is crucial because despite the plethora of environmental justice laws, practices, and committees before, the concentration of pollution in communities of color has worsened (UCC, 2007). Although the use of legislation to achieve environmental justice is not new for community organizations, Pulido et al showed one of the reasons for slow traction toward environmental justice is the reliance on the state. There the authors argued the movement has stalled because it is no longer fighting the state, but attempting to work with it and in doing so the movement has been co-opted. They see the answer forward being “refusing to participating in the regulator charades” (Pulido et al, 2016, pp. 27), but many community groups are still hopeful this new legislation will have a positive impact on their communities. Conclusion Despite increased awareness of environmental justice and health issues in Kettleman City, DTSC approved the permit to expand the Kettleman Hills Facility. While their decision to approve the expansion permit rest on the review of WM’s application, they cite the 2010 CDPH birth defects investigation, as well as their own 2013 Environmental Justice report as evidence the facility is safe to expand. Instead of evidence to support the community’s objections to the expansion, these reports that show a birth defects cluster and numerous health and environmental concerns were unable to establish a single cause and both WM and DTSC used them as support for the expansion of the landfill. This points to the need for further examining the barriers within the permitting process and state institutions for community members seeking environmental justice. Kettleman City is a community of engaged individuals who fought to be included in the local and state permitting processes, but experienced challenges to their meaningful inclusion. In addition to barriers to their meaningful inclusion at the local government level, opponents to the expansion project faced barriers with state institutions. These institutional barriers included the limitations of using public participation to achieving environmental justice and challenging 130 DTSC’s permitting decisions. The limitations of using public participation for achieving environmental justice were demonstrated with institutional racism within the public participation process through the use of unequal comment time for Spanish speakers. Additionally, DTSC presented barriers to challenging the permitting decisions through their reliance on the health study with low statistical power, colorblind environmental policies unable to combat institutional racism in the permitting process, the culture within DTSC of staff members with seemingly conflicts of interest, and DTSC’s lack of permitting criteria. In facing these barriers to achieving environmental justice, community groups developed campaigns to reform DTSC and worked toward passing legislation that would target improving public participation and equity in the permitting process. While many of the bills were successful in eventually becoming laws, their impact has yet to be determined. Although the use of legislation has been viewed by some as a limited resource for the movement, with the right government implementation, these laws could improve both the process and outcomes. SB 695 is limited to one government agency, but if successful there could be replicated at a larger scale, and SB 673 established permitting criteria of considering community vulnerability, which should lead to improved outcomes for permitting in communities of color. While no one bill or group can solve the problems facing environmental justice communities, the continued resilience of community groups demonstrates both the success and the work needed to achieve environmental justice. Chapter 5 References Aguilera, E. (2015, December 9). 2 state scientists disciplined over racially-charged emails. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/09/56144/two-senior-state-scientists- disciplined-over-racia/ Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Austin, R., & Schill, M. (1991). Black, Brown, Poor & (and) Poisoned: Minority Grassroots Environmentalism and the Quest for Eco-Justice. Kan. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 1, 69. Barboza, T. (2014, October 1). Brown criticized for veto of bill to reform toxic substances agency. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la- me-toxic-veto-20141002-story.html Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Review of Policy Research, 16(3-4), 75–103 Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future. Bell, D. (1995). Law Journal Library - HeinOnline.org. University of Illinois Law Review, 893. Bezdek, R., Ferris, D., Kadri, J., Wolcott, R., Drayton, W., Alley, K., … Baker, D. H. (1995). Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions. (B. Bryant, Ed.) (First edition). Washington, D.C: Island Press. Bogado, A. (2015, December 23). What this California department’s racist emails could mean for the communities it’s supposed to protect. Retrieved from http://grist.org/politics/what-this- california-departments-racist-emails-could-mean-for-the-communities-its-supposed-to-protect/ 131 Brown, M. K., Carnoy, M., Currie, E., Duster, T., & Oppenheimer, D. B. (2003). Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. University of California Press. Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1), 103–124. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124 Bryant, B. (1995). Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions. Island Press. Bullard, R. (1994). Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decision Making. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 36(4), 10–44. CalEPA. (2004). CalEPA Environmental Justice Action Plan. California Environmental Protection Agency. _____. (2007). EPA Draft Environmental Justice Assessment Kettleman City. California Environmental Protection Agency. _____. (2010a). USEPA Region IX Air Emissions Study on KHF ponds. United States Environmental Protection Agency. _____. (2010b, June 17). Kettleman City Community Exposure Assessment Work Plan. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/protocol/study267protocol _____. (2013). CalEnviroScreen Tool version 1.0. _____. (2014). Cal EPA Environmental Justice Plan Update. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Publications/Reports/2014/EJUpdateRpt CalEPA and DTSC. (2013, May). Public Participation Plan. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman_PPPlan_WLVersion_0713 CDPH. (2010, December). Investigation of Birth Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, CA. _____. (2011, October). CDPH Follow-Up to Kettleman City Investigation. CDPH and CBDMP. (2010, February). Birth Defects in Kettleman City. California Department of Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CBDMP/Documents/MO- CBDMP-KettlemanCityReport Chevron. (2009). Chevron Corporation 2009 Annual Report. Chevron. Retrieved from https://bib.kuleuven.be/files/ebib/jaarverslagen/Chevron_2009 Chinn, R., Hill, J., Korber, D., & Sweeney, J. (2014, July). Fact Check: Despite Failures by State’s Toxic Regulator, Many Recent Criticisms are Unfounded. California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes. Cole, L. (1994). Environmental Justice Litigation: Another stone in David’s sling. Fordham Urb. LJ, 21, 523–545. CPS HR Consulting. (2013). Department of Toxic Substance Control Permitting Process Review and Analysis. Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) Consulting. Retrieved from http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/DTSCPermitReviewProcessFinalReport Crenshaw, K. (1995). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. The New Press. CRPE. Complaint Under Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, No. 2000d (United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2011). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/16r-10- r9_complaint_redacted 132 _____. (2014a, August). The People’s Senate, Building a New Vision for DTSC. Center for Race, Poverty, & the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.crpe- ej.org/crpe/images/stories/pdf/FINAL_PeoplesSenateReport _____. (2014b, September). 2014 CRPE Legislative Update. Center for Race, Poverty, & the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.crpe- ej.org/crpe/index.php/component/content/article/331-an-important-legislative-update-from-crpe _____. (2015). The Legislative Corner. Center for Race, Poverty, & the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.crpe-ej.org/crpe/index.php/campaigns/the-legislative-corner#SB812 _____. (2016, March 9). Re-Permitting. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/GetInvolved/ReviewPanel/upload/Letter-re-permitting Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. NYU Press. Dowell, J. (2013, October 25). Permit For Landfill B-18 Expansion. _____. (2015, November 8). Request for Designated Status At 16 January 2014 Meeting Of The Water Board. Retrieved from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_decisions/tentative_orders/1401_kettleman/32_ke ttlemanhills_com_dowdall DTSC. (2006, April). Fact Sheet. You may comment on the Draft Hazardous Waste Permit Renewal for Chevron’s Richmond Refinery. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/ChevronRichmond_FS_PermitRenew al_0406 _____. (2008, July). DTSC Environmental Justice Policy. Department of Toxic Substance Control. _____. (2011). DTSC Health Risk Assessment of Kettleman City. Department of Toxic Substance Control. _____. (2012). Health Risk Assessment. Department of Toxic Substance Control. _____. (2013a). Health Risk Assessment. Department of Toxic Substance Control. _____. (2013b, May). Initial study and addendum for the existing B-18 Landfill Expansion Project. Department of Toxic Substance Control. _____. (2013c, June). DTSC Environmental Justice Review for the Kettleman Hills Facility. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman_EJReview_0613 _____. (2014a, May 20). Frequently Asked Questions DTSC Approves the Expansion of the Landfill at the Kettleman Hills Facility. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Kettleman-FAQ-Final-5-20-14 _____. (2014b, November 15). 2 Year Plan Permitting Enhancement Work Plan. Deparment of Toxic Substance Control. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/upload/Permitting_Enhancement_Workplan Environmental Working Group. (2011, February 2). Testimony of Kenneth Cook Present, Environmental Working Group Before the United States Senate Committee on Environmental Public Works On "Oversight Hearing on Public Health and Drinking Water Issues. Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d82d9d4-a566-4cc2-ab77- 6168d4a14a74/cookchrom6final EnviroReporter. (2012, December 13). Toxic Department. Retrieved from http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/toxic-department/all/1/ EPA. (2011, September). Plan EJ 2014. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Retrieved from http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100DFCQ.PDF?Dockey=P100DFCQ.PDF 133 Gallagher, C. A. (2003). Color-Blind Privilege: The Social and Political Functions of Erasing the Color Line in Post-Race America. Race, Gender & Class, 10(4), 22–37. Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice. (2014, June 23). Petition for Review Hazardous Waste Facility Permit for Chemical Waste Management Kettleman Hills Facility. Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice. Retrieved from http://greenaction.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/Petition-for-Review-Greenaction-for-Health-and-Environmental- Justice Hamilton, C., & Ture, K. (1967). Black Power: Politics of Liberation in America. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kings County Board of Supervisors. (2013, March 19). Study Session- Kettleman City Surface Water Treatment Facility Project Update. Kings County Board of Supervisors. Retrieved from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/pdfs/Kings%20Co%20BOD%20haz%20waste%20fee%20r esolution Kings County Public Health Department. (2009). Kings County Public Health Status Report, 2008- 2009. Kumeh, T. (2007, November). Pass it on: Toxic waste moved from area to area. San Mateo County Times. San Mateo, California. Retrieved from http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_7349883 LAC Final Recommendation. (2009, April 16). Final Report and Recommendation Kings County Local Assessment Committee for the Proposed Chemical Waste Management, INC. Kettleman Hills Facility Hazardous Waste Facility Expansion Project. Kings County Local Assessment Committee. Retrieved from http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/pdfs/LAC%20final%20report LAFCo. (2007, October 5). Municipal Service Review for Cities and Community Districts. Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County. Retrieved from http://www.kingslafco.com/Documents/2007%20KC%20MSR%2010-24- 07%20plus%20resolution Lara, R. (2015, October 8). Governor Signs Lara Bill Updating Toxic Waste Facility Permitting Criteria. Senator Ricardo Lara. Retrieved from http://sd33.senate.ca.gov/news/2015-10-08- governor-signs-lara-bill-updating-toxic-waste-facility-permitting-criteria Levy, J. El Pueblo v. Kings County Board of Supervisors, No. F062297 (Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District July 3, 2012). Lombardi, K., Buford, T., & Greene, R. (2015, August 3). Environmental racism persists, and the EPA is one reason why. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/03/17668/environmental-racism-persists-and-epa-one- reason-why Marxen, J. (2014, December). Department of Toxic Substances Control Quarterly Public Meeting. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/GetInvolved/PublicMeetings/upload/QuarterlyMtg_PPT Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press. Mattheisen, M. D. (2003). Effect of Alexander v. Sandoval on Federal Environmental Civil Rights (Environmental Justice) Policy, The. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 13, 35. McGreevy, P. (2013, September 9). State ethics watchdog fines lobbyists who failed to register. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/09/local/la-me-pc-state- ethics-watchdog-fines-lobbyists-who-failed-to-register-20130909 134 McGreevy, P. (2015, December 9). Toxics agency chief condemns racially charged emails. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pc- toxics-agency-chief-condemns-racially-charged-emails-20151209-story.html Morgan, W. R., & Sawyer, J. (1979). Equality, Equity, and Procedural Justice in Social Exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(1), 71–75. Nguyen, V., Wagner, L., & Escamilla, F. (2013, April 3). DTSC Second-in-Command Now Focus of Ethics Investigation. NBC Bay Area. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/DTSCs-Second-in-Command-Now-Focus-of-Ethics- Investigation--201161051.html Nguyen, V., Wagner, L., Paredes, D., & Goldberg, M. (2013b, August 14). State Toxics Director Answers Critics. NBC Bay Area. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/DTSC-Director-Answers-Critics-219515801.html Nidever, S. (2007, March 12). EPA: Landfills not harmful to Kettleman City. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/epa-landfills-not-harmful- to-kettleman-city/article_3b49e98f-3999-5c79-98c1-f52586a87968.html _____. (2007b, March 27). Residents protest Kettleman landfill. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/residents-protest-kettleman- landfill/article_58a81bcf-3902-5543-bd96-0fdd58df7f0d.html OEHHA. (2010, December). Report to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Kettleman City Air Quality Assessment. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial Formation in the United States. Routledge. Ortiz, J. (2015, December 9). Racist remarks in emails put California officials on defensive. Sacbee. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state- worker/article48891175.html Perez, J. AB-1330 Environmental Justice, Pub. L. No. 1330 (2014). Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1330 Pellow, D. (2004). The Politics of Illegal Dumping: An Environmental Justice Framework. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 511–525. Pellow, D. N., & Brulle, R. J. (2005). Power, justice, and the environment: toward critical environmental justice studies. Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement, 1–19. Pulido, L., Kohl, E., & Cotton, N.-M. (2016). State Regulation and Environmental Justice: The Need for Strategy Reassessment. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27(2), 12–31. Ramo, A. (2013). Environmental Justice as an Essential Tool in Environmental Review Statutes: A New Look at Federal Policies and Civil Rights Protections and California’s Recent Initiatives. Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envt’l L. & Pol’y, 19, 41. Rosenhall, L. (2013, September 10). Three fined for covert lobbying in California. The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/lobbying- influence/article6692601.html _____. (2013b, October 6). California strategies walks line between lobbying and public affairs. The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA. _____. (2013c, November 29). FPPC fines Kinney, Areias, and Hickox for covert lobbying. The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA. 135 Sahagun, L. (2009, December 8). Kettleman City asks: Why so many birth defects? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/08/local/la-me-kettleman-city8- 2009dec08 Sahagun, L. (2010, February 10). Feinstein, Boxer call for delay on plans to expand Central Valley landfill. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me- toxic10-2010feb10 _____. (2010b, March 30). Grieving Kettleman City Mothers Tackle a Toxic Waste Dump. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. _____. (2010c, November 23). Toxic waste dump ruled out as cause of Kettleman City birth defects. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/23/local/la-me- kettleman-defects-20101123 _____. (2014, May 21). Waste facility allowed to expand, despite community’s health concerns. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Senate Rules Committee. (2014, August 22). SB 812 Senate Floor Analysis. California State Senate Rules Committee. Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB812 Sexton, K. (1999). Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Island Press. Simmons, W. M. (2008). Participation and Power: Civic Discourse in Environmental Policy Decisions. SUNY Press. Taylor, D. E. (2000). The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4) Tucker, L. (2014). Golden Wasteland: Regulating Toxics or Toxic Regulation? Consumer Watchdog. Retrieved from http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/sites/default/files/resources/goldenwasteland _____.(2015, September 3). Will Bills Creating Independent Oversight of Dysfunctional Toxics Regulator Survive? Retrieved from http://capitolwatchdog.org/article/will-bills-creating- independent-oversight-dysfunctional-toxics-regulator-survive UC Davis Extension. (2016, January 13). Enhancing and Modernizing DTSC’s Public Outreach & Engagement Strategies Summary of Stakeholder Comments and Preliminary Ideas for Improvement. UC Davis Extension Collaboration Center. Retrieved from https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/GetInvolved/ReviewPanel/upload/Enhancing-and-Modernizing-DTSC- s-Public-Outreach-Engagement-Strategies US EPA. (2008). Congener Study. United States Environmental Protection Agency. _____. (2011, March). Kettleman City Indoor Pesticide Study. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Waldman, P. (2005, December 23). Study Tied Pollutant to Cancer; Then Consultants Got Hold of It. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113530126572230084 Wartenberg, D., & Greenberg, M. (1990). Detecting Disease Clusters: The Importance of Statistical Power. American Journal of Epidemiology, 132(supp1), 156–166. Weiner, P. (2016). Peter H. Weiner. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from http://www.paulhastings.com/professionals/details/peterweiner Wright. SB 965- State and Local Government, Pub. L. No. 965 (2012). Retrieved from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB965 136 Yamashita, E. (2010, November 23). State: No common cause for Kettleman City birth defect. Hanford Sentinel. Hanford, California. Retrieved from http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/state-no-common-cause-for-kettleman-city-birth- defect/article_948787a0-f733-11df-95c8-001cc4c002e0.html 137 Chapter 6: Conclusions, Policy Recommendations, and Future Research The movement for environmental justice has evolved since the Warren County protests in 1982 expanding the definitions of environment and environmental health, and developing the strategies used for achieving environmental justice. Although the movement has grown in scope and momentum with the acknowledgement of environmental justice issues, the creation of policies, laws and committees, challenges remain with their implementation and interpretation. The federal and California state requirements for public participation in approving facility permits through engagement with CEQA and the Tanner Act were two such laws designed to incorporate public opinion, and ideally address concerns through mitigation environmental impact. While these laws have set legal standards for engaging the public, these minimum requirements have not been sufficient for meaningfully involving the public. The case of Kettleman City shows the ineffective public participation processes with CEQA and LAC, as well as the institutional challenges that remain for effectively implementing environmental justice laws and practices. Chapter 3 showed the limitations using legally mandated public participation within CEQA and the LAC for meaningful engagement of facility permitting. Here, the case of Kettleman showed the limited government accountability within CEQA’s public participation because not only are lead agencies able to ignore verbal comments at meetings, they can dismiss written concerns to the EIR on pollution or health concerns by stating those are outside their agency’s jurisdiction. The government must take responsibility for allowing the pollution to increase in low income communities of color because they are the ones continuing to permit these industries and they have the final discretion over which projects are built, which are expanded, and which are finally stopped. Chapter 4 examined the continued effort of Kettleman City residents to oppose the permitting of WM projects, despite the limitations with public participation. Residents opposing these projects attempted to be engaged with both projects and have their voices and concerns heard, but institutional challenges with the LAC committees, translations requirements and services, and physical access to meetings made their meaningful participation difficult. Despite the challenges, these residents utilized community-based strategies for engagement that included community organizing and organizing strategies, such as coalition building, media, and litigation. While these strategies were effective at enabling them to physically participate in the permitting process by providing transportation to meetings, information on the projects, fighting for translation services, having LAC meetings moved to Kettleman City, and stopping the incinerator, they were not successful at swaying the outcome to permit the facilities expansion. Here the community opposing the incinerator was able to defeat the project in 1991, but in 2009 despite the increased knowledge of health concerns including the polluted air, water, and birth defects cluster, and the increased laws and government practices acknowledging environmental justice, the government approved the expansion knowingly increasing the air pollution in an already overburdened community. While the increased support for WM can be partially explained by their successful campaign to portray a positive image, as well as the demographic changes meaning community turnover and a less united community to challenge the facility, there continue to be larger structural challenges to using an environmental justice framework to opposing polluting facilities. 138 Chapter 5 considered these larger cultural and institutional challenges to achieving environmental justice. This chapter explains how with increased health concerns and reports, environmental justice legislation, and community strategies to be included in the permitting process the government approved the facility expansion. Although there are multiple health reports for Kettleman City documenting the health issues, this reports was used as evidence to approve, and not deny, the facility’s permit. WM and government agencies consider this and other environmental reports conducted there to be the most extensive studies, and while they documented the health concerns, DTSC used them as evidence to approve the expansion permit. This chapter also examines the institutional barriers to achieving environmental justice by demonstrating institutional racism within the public participation practices, and the barriers to challenging DTSC’s permitting decisions. These barriers within DTSC included their reliance on low statistical power health studies, their use of colorblind environmental justice language, the culture of DTSC, and the lack of permitting criteria. Despite these barriers, community groups organized to support campaigns reforming DTSC and legislation for improving public participation and equity in the permitting process. Remaining Issues & Policy Recommendations Considering the challenges for an effective environmental justice approach beyond public participation include issues of framing and the omission of race or racism. The goal of an environmental justice framework can no longer be to “make environmental protection more democratic” (Bullard, 1994) because this assumes an equal playing field. If the environmental justice movement’s success is measured for its ability to make the process more democratic, then in some ways it has succeeded, but in others it has failed. If its success is measured by the ability to address outcomes that create or increase the disparate impact, then this framework has also failed because the concentration of pollution in low-income communities of color is worse today than in 1987 (UCC, 2007). Although, these measurements conflate the movement’s success with the government’s inability to implement and enforce environmental and environmental justice policies, and instead of viewing these limitations as those of the movement, they are really the failure of the state and federal programs to interpret and implement these policies in a way that supports and benefits the communities that pushed for these policy changes. What is needed then to work toward government decisions that do not continue to concentrate pollution in low income communities of color is a return to the environmental racism framework, and the ability to litigate based on impact, and not intent. Addressing Institutional Racism Currently there is a lack of laws, practices, policies that can address environmental racism. This lack of addressing racism is partially because of the movement’s adoption of justice language over racism, but partially because the government cannot address institutional or structural forms of racism. While racism is individual thoughts of inherent differences based on race that leads to unequal treatment based on race, institutional racism is patterned racism operating at a larger level or within institutions, such as government agencies. The difference 139 between racism and institutional racism is that individuals perpetuate racism, and institutions perpetuate institutional, but institutional doesn’t need to be operating under racist assumptions. Once institutional practices are codified into the culture, norms, or policies, they begin to replace themselves. At another level, structural racism is a form of racism that also operates beyond individuals, and without individual intent in macro level systems. In structural racism, institutions and processes interact to create and reinforce racial inequities (Powell, 2007). As this form of racism does not require individuals or individual intent to function, the elimination of all individual discrimination would still result in racial inequities due to the persistence of structural racism. Therefore, addressing individual forms of racism in government decision-making requires policies and practices that do not allow the inclusion of race, but to target institutional racism requires the adoption of policies that focus on equity. In 1994 Robert Bullard put forth five principles of environmental justice that would address racism in environmental decision-making by promoting procedural, geographic, and social equity. These five principles for environmental justice include: 1) Guaranteeing the right to environmental protection 2) Preventing harm before it occurs 3) Shifting the burden of proof to polluters 4) Obviating proof of intent to discriminate and 5) Redressing existing inequities. While the principles are most about achieving environmental justice, the focus on equity is key for addressing institutional and structural forms of racism and applying these five principles to government definitions of environmental justice could help government agencies achieve environmental justice (Bullard, 1994). The case of Kettleman City highlights two different areas where institutional racism needs to be addressed: in the public participation process and with the state’s environmental justice policies. To address institutional racism in the public participation process, the government agencies involved with permitting decisions should adopt policies that focus on procedural, social, and geographic equity. Policies targeting procedural and social equity would work toward closing the gap in meaningful participation by enacting practices allowing all residents to fully and meaningfully engage with the process, while geographic equity would be addressed in the decision itself. In the case of Kettleman City residents were systematically excluded from the participation process, although the government was legally compliant in hosting their meetings. Hosting meetings at incontinent times and in another city that is not well served by public transit creates inherent barriers to participating. Additionally, having selective translation services of documents, and unequal time to give Spanish comments discriminates against Spanish speakers from their full and meaningful participation. While the government is only legally compelled to host the meeting and provide the opportunity for participation, the process should be more reflective of the challenges community members face to participating. This would mean policy changes requiring translation services of all documents, meetings held in locations close to the community most impacted by the project, and more time for Spanish speakers comments since they require translations for government officials. Even with these changes, the power to approve the permit lies solely with the county and state governments, and currently the approval is at their discretion. This means the government agencies decide if the legal procedural requirements have been met without criteria for distributive or geographic equity. Including an element of geographic equity, or the consideration of existing environmental hazards or pollution, would help provide evidence and support for not siting the increase of pollution in already vulnerable or burdened communities. 140 Even when communities are able to utilize their own community strategies to participate in permitting decisions and are able to bring forward evidence the project would increase the environmental burdens in their community, the state laws are unable to support them. The current environmental justice laws include colorblind or race neutral language, but as an approach to combatting racism, colorblind policies only address individual acts of racism. That is, colorblind policies operate effectively on an individual level, with overt forms, and only where there is not a history or legacy of discriminations. The US experience is one of individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism all operating in different, sometime unassuming ways. Because of these different forms, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could only really address limiting the legalized form of racism, but it cannot reach past legal or individual acts into the structural forms. To address institutional or structural forms of racism, policies much take a different approach beyond colorblind practices to target the underlying structures, cultures, and assumption that subtly shore up systems that reproduce and create racial disparities. Environmental Racism Frame A return to the original environmental racism frame would help support policies that can address the institutional racism in public participation, permitting, and state policies. Returning to an environmental racism frame would enable the government to focus on the root causes of environment injustice and better enable opportunities for addressing these causes that exist within government planning and permitting decisions. Planners and government agents could include and environmental racism framework within the existing permitting policies that would include taking an equitable lens for permitting decisions over an equality one. This would look like interpreting legal requirements for public participation by considering what everyone needs to meaningfully participate in the process instead of the minimum legal requirements. Planners could also utilize the resources they have available to them to better support community residents by engaging with them in a way that shares power in the process. This model would draw on existing knowledge of which participation methods work best for sharing power, as well as engage residents to incorporate their concerns, and not simply be present for them to speak. These changes would work toward an improved participation model, that wouldn’t require legal changes, only a wider interpretation and implementation of the existing requirements to meaningfully include the public. Place as a Civil Rights Issue Ultimately, planners and government agents should reconceive place beyond a geographical consideration and see it as a civil aright issue. Civil Rights are attributed with a specific population and what is considered an undeniable right, such as equal protection under the law, place can be considered a civil right when people are systematically segregated by race and denied equal environmental protection. Currently many city planning issues have already come to be seen as civil rights issues because of the segregation or health inequities they perpetuate through housing (Morris, 1986; Williams and Collins, 2001), transportation (Badger, 141 2015), and development practices (Pritchett, 2003). While many government agencies have civil rights offices, planners viewing their work through a civil rights lens would mean considering the impact of their decisions on communities of color. Place matters to a host of social, political, and economic outcomes, but people are not randomly nor equally distributed (Small and Newman, 2001), nor are environmental burdens or resources (Pearce and Merletti, 2006). When these differences in outcomes are stratified by race, they can be viewed as place-based inequities because it is place that explains them and not income or race. Viewing these places as whole entities, and not pieces of housing, transportation, development, or the environment would allow planners to evaluate how these fields interact and impact one another. The field of planning directly engages with how space is used, how places are created, environmental consideration through land use and general plans, and planners work with policies that direct who lives where based on income and race, and therefore planning should be seen as a civil rights issue. Taking this approach could mean considering race in planning decisions in a way that evaluates who, based on race, will host environmental burdens. It would look like considering cumulative impacts of land use and could lead to decisions that would not place segregated communities of color at higher health risks with concentrated pollution based on their race or income. Future Research This research on the permitting process in Kettleman City has identified numerous future research areas for assessing policies and their implementation. SB695’s potential for moving towards environmental justice by considering community vulnerability will be limited or enabled based on the state agencies implementation. As a lead permitting agency, DTSC will be defining and operationalizing “vulnerability” as well as implementing the criteria into their permitting decisions. After its implementation, research will be able to measure its success or failure in reducing pollution in communities of color already burdened by environmental and health hazards. Here community groups can push to be involved with the defining and implementation to ensure the government works in a manner that best supports their communities. In addition to measuring the impact of SB 673, communities will want to know the impact from both CalEnviroScreen and the community-based model of IVAN. As part of the implementation of SB 535, CalEnviroScreen identifies disadvantaged and vulnerable communities within California as 10% of funds collected through SB 535 from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund are to be directed toward these communities, but there is little research showing the impact from this plan on impacted communities. Although the EPA and DTSC are already using the findings from CalEnviroScreen, less is known on how they are using these findings, and what impact the tool is ultimately having on these communities. Similarly, the community generated IVAN model has been active bringing together community members from disadvantaged communities with state agents, but there is little research on the impact of this model. The IVAN model has spread throughout the state to six different places, but the impact should be known for advocating for resources to expand further. 142 Conclusion The case of Kettleman City that even when a community is highly organized to oppose a project, has utilized various strategies to be included in the process, and experienced previous political success, their opposition and inclusion in the process is not enough to sway the decision in their favor. This shows planners that encouraging community participation is not enough, building community capacity or social capital is not enough, and even empowering residents to be included in the process is not enough to achieve environmental justice as both residents and planners play a role. The environmental justice movement has come a long way since 1987 with now state and federal recognition of EJ issues, laws, policies, appointments, and committees dedicated to achieving environmental justice. With every political win against a polluting industry though, come new challenges. While communities have demonstrated resilience by learning and creating successful strategies for opposing the siting of pollution in their neighborhoods, industries too have learned how to make challenging them more difficult. These industries wouldn’t be successful though, just as community groups wouldn’t be successful in their opposition, without the support of the regulating government agencies. The responsibility to protect human health has always been with the government, not profit-driven private corporations. While the government must decide how to best implement laws and policies to protect health and achieve environmental justice, they cannot and they will not do it alone. The environmental justice movement began with concerned community residents turned organizers and activists and supported by lawyers and politicians. Despite the legal wins and political gains made over the past thirty years, it will be the community organizing and community strategies that will continue to propel the movement forward by continuing to propel the government in the right direction. Chapter 6 References Badger, E. (2015, December 22). The next civil rights issue of our time. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/22/the-next-civil-rights-issue-of- our-time/ Bullard, R. D. (1994). Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decisionmaking. Environment, 36(4). Pearce, N., & Merletti, F. (2006). Complexity, simplicity, and epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(3), 515–519. http://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi322 Powell, J. A. (2007). Structural racism: building upon the insights of John Calmore. NCL Rev., 86, 791. Pritchett, W. E. (2003). The “Public Menace” of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain. Yale Law & Policy Review, 21(1), 1–52. Small, M. L., & Newman, K. (2001). Urban Poverty after The Truly Disadvantaged: The Rediscovery of the Family, the Neighborhood, and Culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 23–45. 143 UCC. (1987). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Public Data Access. Williams, D. R., & Collins, C. (2001). Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports, 116(5), 404–416 THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: NGOS’ DISCOURSES AND DELIBERATIVE PRACTICES WITH COMMUNITIES IN ETHIOPIA by Getachew Dinku Godana A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Communication Studies Under the Supervision of Professor Ronald Lee Lincoln, Nebraska August, 2014 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 UMI 3666194 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. UMI Number: 3666194 THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: NGOS’ DISCOURSES AND DELIBERATIVE PRACTICES WITH COMMUNITIES IN ETHIOPIA Getachew Dinku Godana, Ph.D University of Nebraska, 2014 Adviser: Ronald Emery Lee This dissertation interrogates “community participation” as an international, national, and local discourse and diagnoses the consequences of this discourse for the people living in rural Ethiopia. The analysis proceeds in two steps. First, I critically investigate “community participation” discourses of two purposely selected intergovernmental donors (the UN and the World Bank) and two international NGOs working in Ethiopia, namely Oxfam Great Britain and World Vision. Second, I study grassroots interactions between NGO staffs and the Ethiopian communities they serve. I conducted in-depth interviews with sixty-four members of communities, NGO staff and government officials to understand their experiences and local practices of public deliberation. Additionally, I observed nine NGO-community joint meetings on development issues. Findings of the study suggest different parties have different reasons for embracing "community participation." Adopting a postcolonial lens and employing ideographic criticism helped me illuminate how the rhetoric of "community participation" warrants Western organizations to do development in ways that advance their interests while still appearing to promote grassroots democracy. Findings of the study suggest that the communities I studied appear to be the least influential group, denied a real chance of discussing their own situations and influencing decisions. The results are discussed in terms of practical implications for dealing with multiple stakeholders and conducting grassroots deliberations that empower participants and seek collaborative solutions for development challenges. The study also has theoretical implications for communication- based theorization of participation, voice, empowerment and grassroots democracy. i Copyright 2014, Getachew Dinku Godana ii DEDICATION To my loving and incredibly supportive wife Elleni Melles. I could not have done it without your unconditional support, care and prayers for me. You have sacrificed a lot to support my study and provide for us. In memory of my mother Wosene Tsegaye. You taught me to never give up and keep going even when the going gets tougher. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Over the years I have come to realize more and more that I pursued this study not as a result of my individual genius but because God helped me and provided me with a team of amazing people. I could not have done this dissertation alone. Along the way, a number of people have given me support, advice and encouragement. I recognize a few of the many professors, friends, colleagues and family members. I heartily thank my advisor and mentor, Dr. Ronald E. Lee, for loving this project; being completely invested in it, and guiding me through the entire process patiently and cleverly. I am grateful for the enormous insight, attention, time and emotional support he gave me. He always read my chapters incredibly fast and got back to me with wonderful edits and very clear, detailed feedback. He has been here for me by always encouraging me to “keep the faith” when I struggled. He never gave up on me in spite of the tough times I had to go through. He went out of his way to help me grow and become the person and scholar I am today. He is kind and understanding beyond what words could describe. Not only did Ron introduce me to the beauty and richness of rhetorical criticism, but he also showed me how a person can balance the highest degree of scholarship with empathy and care for human beings. I could not have asked for a better mentor and advisor. I liked our meetings in the coffee shops off campus because I got 100% of him. He made me feel special and comfortable to share with him my challenges, frustrations and plans without any reservation. Our terrific conversations always ended either when I ran out of questions or got enough inspiration to go and write. He even did not mind iv getting a ticket for not putting additional money in the parking meter. No matter how early I arrived, I always found him there, reading my manuscript. On a July Fourth day, he was there sitting on the steps in front of the shop waiting for me because the coffee shop was closed. It is not easy for a person of his stature to ask his friends to donate money for his own student’s research project. He didn't mind going out of his way to get funding for my dissertation project. I am also indebted to the other members of my dissertation committee. I have always been impressed with Dr. Damien Pfister’s incredible talent in teaching and mentoring. Personally, I got a lot of support from him. He helped me get my feet wet in the world of academic publication and created work opportunities for me. I am very grateful to Damien for his confidence in me. I thank Dr. Kathleen Krone for shaping my views in the areas of grassroots organizing and "meeting globalization from below." Her classes helped me to conceive the idea of this dissertation project. I thank my external committee member, Dr. Patrice McMahon, for the support from my first year in the department of Political Science till now. Her insightful comments challenged me to think outside the box of my major field of study. I gratefully acknowledge the funding sources that made this dissertation project possible. Bob Haag, Dan Blankenau and Laura Schumacher generously helped fund my research trip to Ethiopia. I would not have stayed in the field that long and put together the dataset without their support. I am humbled by the huge support I received from other professors and colleagues in the Department of Communication Studies at UNL. Our chair, Dr. Dawn Braithwaite has been my consistent supporter ever since I first met with her. I am indebted to her for v the opportunity to study and work with the community I like and respect. She strikes a balance between demanding intellectual excellence and supporting individuals with their needs. It was very kind and thoughtful of Dawn to financially support my field study trip to Ethiopia. Everybody else in the department has been welcoming and always ready to help. I would like to recognize a few people in particular. My first friends in the department, Travis Bartosh and Arleen Bajerano, helped me a lot to adjust well and carry out my teaching responsibilities. They have a special place in my heart. I shared an office with Sara Baker for four years. She has been a special friend to me and my family. Sara has taught me how to live a better life by crossing intercultural and intergroup boundaries. As I often like to say, “Sara not only teaches intercultural communication, but also lives it.” She has taught me from the simple things as to how many times I would say “bless you” to somebody who sneezes to complex ideas as non-othering approaches to making relationships. I think international students need to get the kind of support Sara gave me. Joshua Ewalt, Scott Church, and Jessy Ohl have been my other friends in Nebraska. I thank every one of them for the support and friendship. Uplifting conversations with Jessy, the constant attention I got from him and his tap on my back meant a lot to me. Josh sometimes scared me with the depth of his scholarship, but he challenged me to think better. Every one of the graduate students in the 2009 cohort (Adam Knowlton, Rachel Stohr, Sara Baker, Sarah Jones and Zantel Nichols) has been very friendly, supportive and engaging. Thanks to Chigozirum Utah, Raymond Blanton and his wife, Hope, for their friendship, encouragements and thoughts. vi I want to thank Dr. Will Norton for bringing me to the United States and his support during my first year. Thanks also to special friends of my family Don and Kathy Cooks for unwavering, all-rounded support. We have seen Don and Kathy make huge difference in the lives of many international students. The world needs more selfless people like them. Don and Dr. Shirley White have read chapters of my dissertation and provided very helpful ideas. I’m touched by Scott and Deena Winter's unconditional love and support to my family, from day one to now. A good part of our household stuff comes from the Winters. I owe a lot to the Ethiopian community in Lincoln. I have received special support from my Bible study group. My pastor and friend Abreham Getachew and his wife Jalele Defa have supported my family in so many ways. I am very grateful to my long-time friends Bekako Duguma, Fasil Abate and Abebe Negatu for helping me out during my field study. Without their support, I could hardly get the cooperation I got from Oxfam, World Vision and the communities I studied. I thank Neema Guluma, Lakew Alemayehu and many other field staff members of the NGOs for facilitating my study and sharing ideas with me. I am thankful to my family in Ethiopia who helped me a lot during the data collection and throughout the study. My sister Helina Dinku and her friend, Hiwust Ashenafi, did a great job transcribing the interviews. I also thank the participants in this study for taking the time to share their experiences with me. Above all, I would like to express my gratitude to my wife, Elleni Teklu and our daughters Lidiya and Biruh Getachew. Ellu, you have sacrificed your successful accounting profession in Ethiopian and worked very hard to provide for our family and help me focus on my studies. You always believed that I could do it and tried to help me vii lift up my spirit. You never complained about life. You taught me to stop worrying about tomorrow and try to enjoy life today. Lidu and Buti, you have no idea how much your prayer and massages helped me feel better and get back to writing. I know this project has taken your dad's attention off of you. You always wanted to know, "How many more pages to write?" It is now over. Thank you so much for your understanding and patience with me viii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 The Rhetoric of "Community Participation" as an Area of Inquiry ...................................... 5 "Community Participation" as a Communication Problematic ............................................. 9 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 11 Theoretical and Practical Contributions............................................................................... 13 Reading "Community Participation" Discourses through a Postcolonial Lens ................... 14 The Rhetorical Space in Ethiopia ........................................................................................ 19 Outline of the Study ............................................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER 2 : CONTEXT TO THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ........ 23 Theoretical Foundations of Participation Discourses .......................................................... 23 Participation: Meaning, Rhetoric and Reality ...................................................................... 31 The Link between NGOs’ Discourses and Approaches to Development ............................ 37 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 41 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................ 42 Rhetorical Criticism ............................................................................................................. 46 Ideographic Criticism ................................................................................................................ 51 Rhetorical Field Methods ..................................................................................................... 52 Participant Observation ............................................................................................................. 55 In-depth Interviews ................................................................................................................... 58 Procedures for the Analysis of Ideographs .......................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 4: AS AN IDOGRAPH …………………………… 62
Dominant Ideologies in “the Era of International Development” ………………………………… 65
Global Agencies’ Rhetoric of in ……………… 71
Rhetoric of the United Nations ……………………………………………. 74
Rhetoric of the World Bank ……………………………………………….. 80
Promotion of democratic rights …………………………………………………………………………… 83
Beneficiary and ………………………………………….. 85
, and development ………………………………………. 86
NGOs’ Rhetoric of ……………………………………………………….. 87
Oxfam’s Rhetoric ……………………………………………………………… 89

World Vision’s Rhetoric of ………………………………………………… 95
Expertise vs. Participation Tensions: A Clash of Rationalities ……………………………………. 99
Ethiopian Government’s Rhetoric of ……………………………… 104
Versus ………………………………………….. 106
Versus Forced Contributions ……………………………………………………. 109
Versus ……………………………………………………………………….. 111
CHAPTER 5: TENSIONS IN GRASSROOTS PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS: LESSONS
FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS …………………………………………………………….. 114
NGOs’ Engagement in the Study Sites and the Communities ……………………………………. 115
Oxfam GB Engagement in the Study Area ………………………………………………………………….. 115
World Vision Engagement in the Study Area ………………………………………………………………. 115
The Research Communities ………………………………………………………………………………………. 117
Presentation and Analysis of Field Observation Data ………………………………………………. 120
Theory of Communicative Action and the Ideal Speech Situation……………………………… 121
Case 1: Oxfam-Community Meeting ………………………………………………………………………….. 128
Scene-agency ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 129
Agent-agency ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 131
Agent-act ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 133
Agency-act ratio ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 135
Case 2: World Vision-Community Meeting ………………………………………………………………… 138
Scene-agency ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 142
Agent-agency ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 143
Agent-act ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 144
Agency-act ratio ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 146
Pentad: Wider Societal Circumference ……………………………………………………………………….. 149
Agent-agency ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 150
Agent-act ratio ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 151
CHAPTER 6: ETHIOPIAN’S PERCEPTIONS OF PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………… 155
Community Voices: “NGOs are here to help us” …………………………………………………….. 157
Conceptualizing Participation ……………………………………………………………………………………. 160
Free Spaces for Public Deliberations? ………………………………………………………………………… 165

NGO Staff Members’ Voices: “We are Empowering Communities” …………………………. 169
Discursive Construction of “Community” …………………………………………………………………… 173
Is Community Participation being “Adulterated?” ……………………………………………………….. 176
Swearing by “Community Participation” ……………………………………………………………………. 181
NGO Workers’ Description of Community Participation Practices in Ethiopia ……………. 185
Donors and the Local Government: Partners and Challenges ……………………………………. 194
Free Deliberative Spaces for NGOs to Engage Communities? ………………………………….. 199
The Voices of Ethiopian Government Officials and Experts …………………………………….. 203
Expertise versus Indigenous Knowledge: Integration and Tensions …………………………… 206
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 217
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………. 219
Project Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 219
Interpretations of Major Findings ………………………………………………………………………….. 222
: The beloved ideograph ……………………………………………………. 222
Cultural imperialism? ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 223
The homogenization and routinization of “participation” ………………………………………………. 224
Discursive ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 226
as contested ground …………………………………………………………. 228
Tensions between < expertise> and ……………………………………. 230
Despite good intentions: rhetoric versus practice …………………. 231
Multiple accountability and limited space for deliberation …………………………………………….. 233
The way forward: Highlighting practices and making policy recommendations ………….. 234
Suggestions for the United Nations, the World Bank and other donors …………………………… 235
Suggestions for the implementing NGOs ……………………………………………………………………. 237
Suggestions for the communities ……………………………………………………………………………….. 241
Suggestions for the host government ………………………………………………………………………….. 243
Contributions of the Study ……………………………………………………………………………………. 244
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………………………………….. 246
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 247
APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 266
Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 266

Appendix B ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 267
Appendix C ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 268
Appendix D ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 269
Appendix E ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 270
Appendix F…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 271
Appendix G ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 271

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Located in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia is a county with a glorious history and
ancient civilization. Inhabited by about eighty ethnic groups with distinct languages, my
country is a mosaic of diverse cultures. We, Ethiopians, relish the fact that we are the
only African nation that remained independent, after successfully defending the country
against a modern Italian colonial army with just traditional weapons. As much as we
celebrate our independence and cultural values, we acknowledge that our country is
among the poorest nations in the world on almost all measures of economic progress.
Visiting my place of birth in 1993, 18 years after my family moved out, I was
struck by the level of poverty I saw. I was only five when we left that very small
community in the western part of the country. I was depressed to see the place had no
electricity, running water, telephone service or a properly paved road. The “house” I was
born in had gotten so old that it could have come down had it not been for the three big
tree branches that supported it, extending from the outside of the wall to the ground. I
wondered what life in my community was like around the time I was born. I wondered
when it was going to improve. For the first time, I realized my life in the capital city was
not that bad. Like many other Ethiopian children, I never had a toy or a proper ball. I
loved soccer. The most common soccer “balls” we had as kids were old socks stuffed
with rags or cotton. I never went to a swimming pool before I graduated from college.
When I was a teenager, my first swimming “lesson” was offered to me by older kids in a
polluted river, about a mile away from where I lived. I remember two kids from my
neighborhood drown in that river trying to learn to swim by themselves. I did not have a
bike throughout my childhood. I had no clue how ice cream tasted until my first year in

college. My mom struggled to provide us with basic food and clothing. But I still
preferred to think we were a “middle-class” family, whatever that was supposed to mean.
It probably was because I saw far worse cases of poverty than my family experienced.
There came another moment that led me to see real poverty. In 1998, I joined a
major aid organization as a communication officer. My job involved writing “need
stories,” which were to be sent to the West, edited, and used as fundraising materials. I
travelled deep in rural villages to find compelling stories. I remember weeping and
getting depressed after listening to stories of people in abject poverty. I also handled the
visits of several high profile donors (including American philanthropists like Howard
Buffet and Hollywood actors Tim Reid and Blair Underwood). I have stood right by their
side when some of these visitors cried like babies. I have seen famine-stricken children
die a few minutes after I took their pictures.
I have witnessed multi-million dollar community development projects that failed
to bear much fruit because we, the aid workers, got the strategies wrong. The
communication between us and the communities we served were too top-down. In my
days in the field, the protocol of communication was, for the most part, from center to
periphery. Experts who came from out of the community tried to introduce innovations
without little discussion with the communities. Almost all the big decisions were made at
the headquarters or field offices of the NGOs.
I know what poverty is like. I can easily connect with discussions dealing with
poverty and development. That is why the topic of this dissertation is so close to my
heart. Eight out of every ten of my countries citizens make their living out of subsistence
agriculture. The literacy rate stands at 43% (US State Department, 2011). Health facilities

are limited in number and capacity. Seventy-seven children die out of every 1,000 live
births before reaching the age of five (US State Department, 2011). According to UNDP,
Ethiopia’s Human Development Index1 for the year 2011 stands at a 0.363—in the low
human development category—positioning the country at 174 out of 187 countries and
territories (UNDP, 2011).
Famine has been a recurrent phenomenon in Ethiopia. Since 1973, the country
has endured seven national droughts, though none has caused a famine as severe as the
one 25 years ago (Oxfam, 2009). According to Oxfam GB, the 1984-1985 famine was so
catastrophic that it killed about a million people. By late 1984, the suffering became
sufficiently dramatic to attract the attention of Western mass media (Cutler, 1991). What
“blew the story open” was a film shot by Mohamed Amin and narrated by Michael Buerk
(Harrison & Palmer, 1986, p. 110). In October 1984, this Visnews film was shown first
on BBC TV News on the 23rd and 24th of October and then around the world (Harrison &
Palmer, 1986). The impact of the television coverage was extraordinary, “one of the
rarest in the history of television” (Cutler, 1991, p.176). The shocking pictures “shattered
the conscience of the world” (ICIHI, p. 9). Ethiopia became best known for famine (Gill,
2010). It became “the face of hunger,” “the iconic poor country” in the world (Gill, p. 2).
The NGO sector started actively engaging in Ethiopia in the early 1970s as a
result of the devastating famine in the northern part of the country (Rahmato, Bantirgu &
Endeshaw, 2010). Following the famines of 1973 and 1984, the number of NGOs
increased. Later on with the change in government in 1990, a more conducive

1 According to UNDP (2011) Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure
for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long
and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living.

environment was established that further encouraged the growth of NGOs in Ethiopia.
According to Rahmato et al., as of 2007, 1,976 NGOs, of which 234 NGOs (12%) were
International, were operating in Ethiopia. These scholars argue that the Ethiopian NGO
community is not as developed in terms of diversity in sectors engagement, size and
capacity compared to many other African countries.
NGOs in Ethiopia began by providing relief services, which lasted for a long
time. With an improvement in the situation after the famine, the focus of NGOs shifted
towards helping drought-stricken people get back to normal life. This was then gradually
followed by NGOs involvement in economic development programs. Unlike the periods
of humanitarian assistance, where funding was raised from individuals through
international campaigns, these long-term development programs required NGOs to
establish themselves in communities and seek funding from Western donors. In the
1980s, there was an exponential growth of Western NGOs operating in Africa. The
NGOs started to compete for funding. This required writing proposals that addressed
issues important to donors. One of the issues that emerged at the time was the need for
engaging communities in the development decision-making process. Thus, out of these
circumstances the rhetoric of “community participation” emerged.
The purpose of this dissertation is to interrogate “community participation” both
as an international, national, and local discourse and to attempt to understand the
consequences of this discourse for the people living in rural Ethiopia. My analysis
proceeds in two steps. First, I critically investigate the “community participation”
discourses of two purposely selected intergovernmental donors (The UN and the World
Bank) and two international NGOs working in Ethiopia, namely Oxfam Great Britain

(Oxfam GB) and World Vision. Second, I study grassroots interactions between NGO
staffs and the Ethiopian communities they serve. In doing so, I investigate whether the
rhetoric in the global public sphere has influenced “community participation” and
deliberative practices on the ground.
I am uniquely well suited to carry out this project. I speak fluently the two
languages spoken in Ethiopia in my research communities—Afaan Oromo and Amharic.
I worked for five years as a communication officer for a major NGO working for
Ethiopian economic development. I understand the nuances of the NGO-community
interactions.
I am a pro-poor, social change-oriented communication scholar. I am passionate
about rural community development and the initiatives aimed at making their lives better.
I have a deep desire to see the poor have a voice on issues that matter to them. My
identification with the poor and the advocate role I choose to assume allows me to make
arguments that favor change of the status quo (Creswell, 2007; Hess, 2011). Creswell
argues that the basic tenet of the advocacy worldview is that “research should contain an
action agenda for reform that may change the lives of participants, the institutions in
which they live and work, or even the researchers’ lives” (p. 21). Similarly, Hess (2011)
argues that “criticism becomes enacted as advocacy” through a participatory approach
allows the possibility of standing alongside those who seek changes to status quo
conditions. By its very nature critical rhetorical study is emancipatory.
The Rhetoric of “Community Participation” as an Area of Inquiry
The participation of citizens in decision-making processes has gained rhetorical
popularity in the last three decades. Since the 1980s, it is rare to find a development

program that does not refer to participation (Angeles, 2005). The Google Ngram Viewer2
shows constantly increasing use of the phrase “participatory development” between the
years 1970 and 2000 (see appendix A). Cornwall and Brock (2005) argue that
“participation” (along with “poverty reduction” and “empowerment”) has gained
considerable purchase in recent years in the language of mainstream development.
Participation has become a prominent idea in social change discourses since many
people are, at least in public, for democracy (Fischer, 2000; Gough et al., 2003; White,
1999). It is not possible to embrace democracy and reject the idea of engaging different
actors in deliberations because democracy requires broadly based participation in a
deliberative process to come up with “laws and policies that are more inclusive and more
just than measures enacted by monarchs or powerful elites” (Hauser, 1999, p. 5).
There is a widely held view that grassroots community development initiatives
must become democratic by engaging citizens in deliberations. Citizens who get truly
involved in the decision-making aspects of development projects not only develop a
sense of dignity and self-sufficiency but also become empowered in the process of
deliberations. They will build capacities to deliberate over challenges they may face in
the future. The participation of community members in affairs that affect their lives is a
fundamental aspect of grassroots democracy and serves as a check and balance
mechanism. Empowered community members will be in a better position to hold other
development actors accountable.

2
The Google Ngram Viewer is a phrase-usage graphing tool which charts the yearly
count of selected n-grams(letter combinations), words, or phrases, as found in over 5.2
million books digitized by Google Inc. (up to 2008). The words or phrases (or ngrams)
are matched by case sensitive spelling, comparing exact uppercase letters, and plotted on
the graph if found in 40 or more books.[ The Ngram tool was released in mid-December
2010

Participatory development was introduced as an alternative to the previously held
notion that the mission of donor agencies was to “deliver development to poor countries”
(Long, 2001, p.2). In the decades following World War II, international development was
mainly a donor-driven and outsider-led venture (Cooks & Kothari, 2001). The rapid
adoption of participation by international agencies in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
according to Long (2001), “signified a major shift in development thinking” (p. 2).
In developing countries like Ethiopia, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are
one group of players that are active in international development efforts to improve the
welfare of poor people. They play increasingly important roles in fomenting democracy
and solidarity within the global system (Dempsey, 2009; Werker &Ahmed, 2008).
Especially in Africa, non-government organizations, associations and networks are
considered a beacon of hope for democracy (Dempsey, 2009; Orvis, 2003). NGOs claim
to provide venues for discourses unregulated by the state (Hauser, 1999). Funding
agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have
high expectations for NGOs. They see NGOs as “promoters of democracy” (Lugar, 2006,
p. v). They channel a huge amount of resources every year through NGOs partly because
they believe grassroots based non-government organizations would make a better use of
limited resources.
Given their active involvement in the international development arena, NGOs
have created and circulated the discourses of community participation. As a result of
these discourses, they have been embraced and promoted by international development
agencies like the World Bank and by critics of top-down development (Fisher, 1997).

Despite the rhetoric, “genuine participation… is not in everyone’s interest”
(Servaes, 1996, p. 23). White (1999) contends that the reality of participation is often at
considerable variance from the rhetoric. This might be part of the reason why there are
continued debates regarding how and to what extent communities should be involved in
deliberations. There are people who think citizens do not have enough knowledge to
participate meaningfully in policy decisions (Dempsey, 2009). Others claim it is difficult
to legitimately deny citizens a place at the decision-making table despite their level of
knowledge (Fischer, 2000). As a result, Fischer notes, many social scientists and
politicians see citizen participation as caught in a dilemma between impossibility versus
inevitability.
Streeten (1997) argues that NGOs usually use “participation” more “as a slogan
than a thought-out strategy” (p. 193). Similarly, Dempsey (2009) contends that the
assumption that the democratic culture may be found within civic society organizations
does not hold true. She argues that these organizations are structured by a complex set of
economic relationships and social and material inequalities. Dempsey also asserts that
these inequalities contribute to the differential ability of groups and hence their roles in
the global public sphere. In the process of attempting to improve a community’s
circumstances, Dempsey (2009) posits that NGOs may privilege a certain kind of
knowledge and eventually prevent these very citizens from speaking on their own behalf.
So, it is important to discover how far NGOs that swear by democracy and citizen
participation have gone in practice toward fulfilling the mission of “giving voice to the
people” (Lugar, 2006, p. 1). Whether NGOs have been able to create amateur-friendly
deliberative spaces or preferred to maintain an expert-dominated environment is an issue

worth examining. Some NGOs’ current practices of limiting “community participation”
to the involvement of rural communities in the provision of cheap manual labor might be the
result of these inherent contradictions. There are also apparent tensions between the
requirements of bracketing differences between participants, on the one hand, and
maintaining the values and preconceived missions of NGOs, on the other hand.
Grassroots deliberative processes and relationships between communities and
development agents, specifically as related to their differing positions of power, have
been relatively unexplored (Gough et al., 2003; UNDP, 2009). The power differential
takes a different level when NGOs based in the West are met with indigenous forms of
organizing and community structures in Ethiopia. Thus, in this study, I trace the
influence of the global discourse of participation to grassroots situations. I try to achieve
this by analyzing discourses of selected international NGOs operating in rural Ethiopia,
on the one hand, and learning the reactions of communities who are supposed to benefit
from NGO-initiated programs, on the other hand. Whereas it is possible to study
“community participation” by foregrounding its political, economic, social, or
psychological aspects, this study is centered on its communication aspects. More
specifically, I am interested in the rhetorical strategies organizations use to fame their
messages of “community participation” and the deliberative processes agents of
development follow in making collaborative decisions.
“Community Participation” as a Communication Problematic
Chambers (2005) argues that participation can be analyzed mainly on two
fronts—communication and resources. However, many writers do not see the
communicative side of the participatory development equation. Exceptions to this are

communication scholars Shirley White, Robert Agunga, Colin Fraser, and Sonia Restepo-
Estrada who take a communicative approach in their analysis of participation and
development. For example, White (1999) argues communication skills, based on a sound
understanding of communication theory and practice, particularly participatory
communication, are the foundation upon which the development facilitator builds. This,
according to White, translates into the ability to engage in “supportive dialogue, active
listening and unbiased observation” (p. 345). Similarly, Agungua (1997) takes the
position that “people-centered development is essentially a communication process
because it requires the agents of change to engage in dialogue with the people they seek
to help” (p. xvi). Both these scholars believe development programs fail because many
planners and workers are unable to address issues of communication due to their lack of
training in communication skills. The other reason, according to Fraser and Restrepo-
Estrada (1998), is that the purposive use of communication for social change and
development “remains one of the neglected issues of our time” (p. 5).
Social change is facilitated primarily through participatory communication. Pant
(2009) contends that the process of development becomes more sustainable when
“communication is a full partner in the development process and executed intelligently”
(p. 543). Grassroots development efforts involve interpersonal dialogue and organizing.
Communication and participation have been rightly described as “two sides of the same
development coin” (Parks, Gray-Felder, Hunt & Byrne, 2006, p. 817). A development
practitioner is first of all a “communication actor” (Bassette, 2004, p. 7). Bassette further
notes the way we approach a local community, the attitude we adopt in interacting with
community members, the way we understand and discuss issues, and the way we collect

and share information, “all involve ways of establishing communication with people” (p.
8).
Participation is also a rhetorical construct. First, it is a fluid concept sustained in
discourse by different rhetors, including UN agencies, the World Bank, NGOs and
academics. Cook and Kothari (2001) assert participatory development does not have a
refined existence “out there” but is constructed by a cadre of development professionals
whose ability to create and sustain this discourse is indicative of the power they possess
(p. 15). Second, rhetoric is involved in both legitimating participatory development
interventions and in obscuring practices that do not qualify as participatory. Third,
development is said to be participatory when communities have the agency to make their
voice heard (McPhail, 2009).
Significance of the Study
The actual practice of community participation is far from the prescriptions and
descriptions in organizational discourses. I am particularly interested in the voices of
experts and citizens engaged in the practices of community participation. I understand the
stakeholders in development range from peasants to local government officials to
international actors, including NGOs and multilateral agencies like the World Bank and
IMF. However, this dissertation limits itself to two main stakeholder groups.
The first group includes poor people living in rural Ethiopia who are
educationally and economically disadvantaged. The World Bank (1996) argues it is
important to focus on the participation of the poor and disadvantaged because these
intended beneficiaries are usually without voice in the development process. Similarly
UNDP (2009) observes:

There is a tendency for core planning teams not to involve certain stakeholders in
planning. This typically occurs with complex programs and projects and work that
involve developing policy. Marginalized groups, poor rural community members,
minorities and others are often left out because planners assume that these groups
are not well informed or educated enough to contribute to the planning process.
(p. 26)
The second group consists of international NGOs. I analyze the discourses in key
written and audiovisual documents of my target NGOs and the attitudes and
communicative practices of their workers on the ground. Since these workers are mostly
experts in agriculture, health, education, rural infrastructure, and other component areas
of development, it is important to discover their perceptions of and commitment to
engaging citizens in development dialogue.
I focus on international NGOs because they are among the organizations that
pioneered participatory approaches to community development (The World Bank, 1996).
By international NGO, I mean non-profit, voluntary, private organizations operating at
the international domain (Vedder, 2007). Their focus ranges from provision of
humanitarian and development aid to promotion of good governance. Owing to their
comparative advantage in the use of the communication technology, such NGOs spread
these “buzzwords” to grassroots workers. Government office staffs and communities in
Ethiopia usually get introduced to such discourses at NGO-organized local training
meetings.
I picked two international NGOs for my study using a purposive sampling
technique. By international NGOs, I mean transnational organiztions and networks wich

have presence in multiple countries (Dierks, 2001). Oxfam GB is a secular, advocacy-
oriented international NGO with over 40 years of presence in Ethiopia. World Vision is
an international Christian humanitarian organization. It has been active in Ethiopia in
service delivery and advocacy since 1971. Both organizations bring in a large amount of
resources and work with multiple communities in different parts of my country. Owing to
my own connections, I had access to their documents and an opportunity to attend
meetings they held with community members.
Theoretical and Practical Contributions
The facilitation of citizen participation requires an appropriate organizational
setup and a context for organizing for social change. NGO programs are good places to
begin the investigation of the power relations and tensions around citizen participation.
Since a good many of these NGOs have Western origins or funding, they uphold
participation as a noble democratic value. However, my experiences as a field worker and
the review of literature suggest that not all NGOs ensure genuine citizen participation in
the locations in which they work. Specific to the Ethiopian context, development agents’
claims of involving citizens in community-based projects are usually taken at face value.
In this era of unprecedented technological innovation, the question of whether it is
possible to involve largely uneducated, rural citizens of Ethiopia in increasingly scientific
and complex development projects remains a difficult question to answer. A related
question is whether citizens can meaningfully contribute to the deliberations and
decision-making processes. Papa, Singhal, and Papa (2006) argue that the complexity of
the enterprise becomes apparent when a group of disempowered people organizes for
social change.

To the best of my knowledge, no critical investigation has been made in the
Ethiopian context to address these questions from the perspective of NGOs and
communication. Deetz (2007) contends that the issue of the nature of the stakeholder
interaction in the decision-making process is often overlooked, even in fairly complete
reviews of participation processes. So this study contributes to the theorization of citizen
participation in development decision-making deliberations. The study also helps NGOs
in Ethiopia to be cognizant of the dynamics of participation and perhaps adopt better
models of stakeholder involvement.
Reading “Community Participation” Discourses through a Postcolonial Lens
“In the context of international development, post-colonialism reveals the ways in
which development and development discourses can be read as part of a neo-
colonial project that touches all levels of development activity-from the
interventions of the IMF to the work of a small NGO” (McKinnon, 2006, p. 22).
“Post-colonial studies represent an important development paradigmatically in
addressing the African development problematic” (Blake, 2009, p. 74).
In this study, I use a postcolonial lens to question dominant cultural values and
discourses surrounding community participation. Scholars generally describe postcolonial
studies as an interdisciplinary field concerned with “theorizing about colonialism and
decolonization” (Shome & Hegde, 2001, p. 250). According to Kavoori (1998), “The
post-colonial position addresses issues of power and hegemony in an altered, globalized
and postmodern world” (p. 196). Its overarching goal is dismantling the colonial
enterprise by “exposing the Eurocentricism and imperialism of Western discourses”
(Shome, 1996, p. 41). For Shome and Hegde (2001), the postcolonial paradigm is distinct

from most contemporary critical approaches because its scope extends beyond the nation
and its historical and international depth provide an understanding of cultural power.
Postcolonialism has been accused of a preoccupation with theory, resulting in scholarship
that is impractical and inaccessible (Shome & Hegde, 2001)
McEwan (2009) argues there is no single origin of postcolonialism. She posits
that postcolonialism, as an academic inquiry, is inspired by “a number of responses to
colonialism and decolonization” (p. 34). The development of postcolonialism into a
major critical paradigm is tightly connected to the Subaltern Studies Group in South
Asian studies, the study of fiction written in former colonial countries (McEwan, 2009)
and the work of comparative literature scholars based in the United States (Kavoori,
1998). Neither the origins nor the scope of postcolonial theory seem to be clear. These
are subjects of continued debate. What is more important to me is that postcolonial theory
today is “concerned with revealing the situatedness of knowledge, and particularly the
universalizing knowledge produced in imperial Europe and the West most broadly”
(McEwan, 2009, p. 34). Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak are frequently
cited as significant contributors to the development of postcolonial theory. The
publication of Edward Said’s seminal work, Orientalism, in 1978 is arguably the starting
point of postcolonial theory.
Postcolonialism is a contested field (Baaz, 2005; Kapoor, 2008; McEwan, 2009).
According to McEwan, different people understand postcolonialism differently. Some see
it as a period “after colonialism”; others think it is a “condition related to the state after
colonialism”; still some others view it as a “metaphysical, ethical and political theory
dealing with issues such as identity, race, ethnicity and gender” (p. 17). Part of the

debate and criticism has to do with the meaning of the prefix “post-.” On the one hand, it
seems to connote the time after colonialism. For example, Kavoor’s (1998) argument that
“the term [post-colonial] should be reserved for the future state (the time after
colonialism),” is indicative of the use of the hyphenated “post-colonial.” On the other
hand, “post-colonial” suggests what McEwan (2009) would call “critical aftermath,”
which refers to “cultures, discourses and critiques that lie beyond but remain closely
influenced by colonialism” (p. 17). My use of the term “postcolonial” here does not refer
to an achieved state that follows the formal European colonization of the Global South. In
my study, I am interested in indirect domination, which continues long after brute
colonialism ended.
The postcolonial lens provides a more profound insight into the neo-colonial
power structures underlying contemporary approaches to international development.
Postcolonial criticism constitutes indeed an appropriate model for dealing with these
geopolitical problems (Hasian, 2001). That is why scholars from a range of other
disciples including political science, critical studies and literature employ the postcolonial
lens to study various aspect of international relations (Chandler, 2011; Newman, 1995;
Wa Thiong’o, 1986). I am using the postcolonial frame to better address concerns with
the Western conceptualization of participation and elite-driven development approaches
and practices. It also helps me to understand how the institutional practices of
international NGOs silence the subaltern communities in Ethiopia. My study qualifies as
postcolonial because I adopt a pro-poor and emancipatory political stance (Shome &
Hedge, 2001).

Although never colonized, Ethiopia has never been freed from the negative effects
of colonialist discourses. High levels of poverty and frequent humanitarian crises
resulting from famines have brought many NGOs and attracted a great deal of
international aid to Ethiopia. NGOs do a wonderful job of lifesaving, rehabilitating
communities, and engaging in long-term development programs. Notwithstanding such
meritorious achievements, I argue that there is a need to study critically all sides of
NGOs’ contributions. I argue, along with many other critics, that the practices of NGOs
fall short of the promises in their participatory rhetoric. One of the reasons for this could
be that they are faced with the dilemma of serving with missionary and philanthropic
zeal, on the one hand, and responding to the interests of donors and governments in their
home countries, on the other hand. In the middle of such tensions it is possible that they
serve a western neo-imperial agenda, either intentionally or unintentionally. NGO
development interventions did not come to Ethiopia without some kind of ideological
string attached to them, to be sure. Some critics describe NGOs as a friendlier means of
implementing neo-colonial policy (Amutabi, 2006; Chandler, 2011). Chandler (2011)
sees NGOs, especially the “activist” ones, as “idea-generating, non-state actors” in the
international sphere (p. 114). The postcolonial critical model permits me to investigate
whether and to what extent the legacy of colonization is embedded in the discourses and
practices of the international NGOs I studied.
I particularly explore participation in the context of development projects initiated
by NGOs. Postcolonial theory is relevant for the study of development because it
provides tools for making sense of development in different ways and also creating
“space for alternative development knowledge” (McEwan, 74). McEwan (2009) posits

that development is one of the dominant western discourses that the postcolonial
approach seeks to challenge. McKinnon (2006) argues, “the development community
has turned increasingly to participatory approaches and a discourse of ‘the local’ because
of ‘concerns around development as an imperialist or neo-colonial project’” (p. 23).
A postcolonial approach is perfectly aligned with my focus on critiquing
discourses, including narratives, concepts, ideologies and signifying practices (McEwan,
2009). According to Mohan (2001), “Postcolonial studies alert us to the epistemic
violence of Eurocentric discourses of the non-West and the possibilities of recovering the
voices of the marginalized” (p. 157). My analysis of community participation makes
more sense when it is situated in the broader context of colonial history.
In a special issue of Communication Theory, devoted to furthering the dialogue on
postcolonial theory, Shome and Hedge (2001) argue that postcolonial and communication
studies have a lot to offer one another as both fields are concerned with discourses of
modernity. These communication scholars claim that “a postcolonial intervention pushes
for more socially responsible problematization of communication” eventually leading to
“a more just and equitable knowledge base about the third world, the other and the ‘rest’
of the world” (p. 261). Postcolonial approaches provide communication scholars with an
“intellectual fervor and language to deconstruct privilege and account for the complex
interconnections between power, experience and culture” (p. 262). To this end, they
identify issues of identity, representation, agency and cultural hybridity as some of the
possible sites of postcolonial engagement for communication scholarship. Similarly,
Shome (1996) underlines the need for rhetoricians to place the texts they critique or the
theories they produce “against a larger backdrop of neocolonialism and racism” (P. 41).

Similarly, Hasian (2001) identifies authority, the question of who can “speak” for “other”
and social agency and responsibility as some of the “key issues” that are involved in the
rhetorical investigations that build on postcolonial insights (p. 23). Some communication
scholars have conducted postcolnial studies (Broadfoot & Munshi, 2007; Ganesh, Zoller
& Cheney, 2005; Grimes & Parker, 2009; Prasad, 1997). This study contributes to the
emerging postcolonial scholarship in the field of communication studies.
The Rhetorical Space in Ethiopia
Ethiopia is a federal republic under its 1994 constitution. There are opposition
parties and elections are held every five years. However, a free, liberal democracy
remains a distant goal for Ethiopia (Lugar, 2006). The current ruling party, the Ethiopian
People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), has governed the country since
1991. Following the 1994 press freedom bill, there was promising progress toward the
development of a critical press. After a bitterly contested election in 2005, the
government took legal and administrative steps to suppress critical voices in the country,
including newspapers and civil society organizations. There are hardly any independent
electronic media that deal with politics per se.
The Ethiopian Constitution guarantees democratic rights, including freedom of
expression and association. For example, Article 29, Sub-Article 2 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without any interference. This
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of
all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of
art, or through any media of his choice.

From the point of view of my research, another important provision of the
Constitution is Article 30, which ensures “Every person has the right to freedom of
association for any cause or purpose.” Similarly the right of assembly, demonstration and
petition is protected under Article 30, Sub-Article 1:
Everyone has the right to assemble and to demonstrate together with others
peaceably and unarmed, and to petition. Appropriate regulations may be made in
the interest of public convenience relating to the location of open-air meetings and
the route of movement of demonstrators or, for the protection of democratic
rights, public morality and peace during such a meeting or demonstration.
These articles provide the Constitutional basis for communal democratic space,
where critical public opinion might be formed and circulated. The legal provisions sound
great as most of them were fashioned after model documents from democratic nations, as
the government of Ethiopia admits. Some critical scholars and political analysts claim the
Ethiopian Constitution is nominal as the behavior and practices of the government do not
correspond to the written provisions (Vestal, 1999). Notwithstanding their biases,
international monitoring organizations like Freedom House, Article 19 and International
Press Institute did not find a functioning democracy in Ethiopia. In their 2011 rating of
countries for freedom, both The Economist and Freedom House put Ethiopia under the
authoritarian/not free category.
The current Ethiopian federal administrative structure has nine regional states
(killils), formed, by and large, on the basis of ethnic homogeneity, and two federal city
administrations-Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa (Bariagaber, 2006). According to Markakis
(2011), the merit of federalism as a facilitator of diversity in governments is far from

obvious in the case of Ethiopia, where “a rigidly uniform system is imposed that does not
allow the slightest departure from the prototype designed in Addis Ababa” (pp. 241-242).
The administrative structure of the Ethiopian state rests on the woreda, which
ideally is supposed to have 100,000 inhabitants (Markakis, 2011). Since all federal and
regional state agencies are represented at this level, Markakis argues, the woreda is well
positioned to play an effective role in local government. The unit below the woreda is the
kebele. This is the level where the state actually reaches the people. The population of a
kebele greatly varies from a few hundred to several thousand depending on the settlement
pattern of the people. The kebele has an elected council, executive committee, militia
unit, court and prison to enforce state laws. The kebele is in charge of collecting taxes,
controlling land (the most important resource) and its distributions, collecting fertilizer
loan repayments, issuing identity cards, and writing recommendation letters for people
applying for public services at regional and federal levels (Markakis, 2011).
The state has structures below the kebele level. The kebele is subdivided into three
zones (Sub-kebles) and further down into gere/got (groups) and one-to-five clusters. One-
to-five cluster is a structure the government recently introduced “to effectively mobilize”
citizens and “engage them in development.” A household head is in charge of watching
and reporting the political life of every member of five households in his/her vicinity.
Some scholars and political activists believe the system is motivated by surveillance
purposes. In addition, there are different committees such as the village development
committee set up by the state and sometimes NGOs. It is apparent that the grassroots
government structures are increasingly powerful instruments in getting across state ideas

in a top-down fashion. The NGOs are required to involve the kebele officials in most of
their meetings with communities or at least get the blessing of the local officials.
In January 2009, the Ethiopian Parliament passed legislation to regulate civil
society organizations (CSOs). NGOs complain that the new law is restrictive in
demarcating areas of operations for different types of CSOs (for example, by excluding
those receiving more than 10% of funding from external sources from many areas of
activity such as advocacy on policy issues, human rights and voter education).
Outline of the Study
In the first chapter, I tried to achieve two things. First, I identified the rationale for
this study, the purpose of the study and its significance. Second, I characterized the
rhetorical situation in Ethiopia. In Chapter 2, I review relevant literature on the rhetoric of
“community participation,” its theoretical bases, its evolution, and the attendant rhetoric
about participation and its reality. The chapter also sheds light on the nature of
nongovernmental organizations and their role and impact on development in Africa.
Chapter 3 describes my methodological approach. Chapter 4 presents the rhetorical
analyses of “community participation” discourses by selected organizations. Chapters 5
and 6 detail the ethnographic and interview data respectively. They provide a rhetorical
analysis of each of my case organizations. Finally, in chapter 7 I bring findings of the
rhetorical and field data analysis in conversation before concluding the project with a
discussion of the implications of major findings for the lives of the poor and also for
furthering theories of public deliberation.

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT TO THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
Describing the rhetorical situation is a very important condition for a critical
reading of discourses. Unless we understand the context in which the meaning of
“participation” is created and negotiated, we will be unable to sufficiently explain why
communicators chose to use certain rhetorical strategies rather than others. Thus, in this
chapter, I will justify participation as an important ideograph rooted in democracy. I do
this by highlighting the theoretical foundations of “participation” and discussing how the
concept of “participation” evolved over time. Then, I discuss “participation” as
conceptualized by contemporary thinkers and practitioners of development and see to
what extent the reality matches the rhetoric. Finally, I offer an overview of how
international organizations like the UN and the World Bank rhetorically explain and
justify their interests and how far they contribute to public discourses of participation.
Theoretical Foundations of Participation Discourses
In thinking about participation, we can look back to the ancient Greeks and
wonder about the highest level of participation regular citizens enjoyed in the
deliberations over almost all issues that mattered to them. In many ways ancient Athens’s
political culture provides the prototype of participation (Hauser, 1999; Mansuri & Rao,
2013). Hansen (2005) singles out the “unparalleled” degree of participation as “the most
amazing aspect of Athenians’ democracy” (p. 23). According to Hansen, each of the 40
assemblies (ekklesia) Athenians held every year were attended by no less than 6,000 of
the total 30,000 adult male citizens. Every free man (with the exception of slaves,
women, children, and foreigners) had the right to speak, debate and vote on issues tabled

for discussion by a council of five hundred ordinary people elected by lot (Hansen, 2005;
Hauser, 1999). Hauser argues that the Greeks regarded deliberative performances as the
method for clarifying vague or poorly understood problems, for uncovering new ways to
frame issues, for resolving impasses, and for discovering shared grounds for communal
action.
One lesson we may draw from the political culture of the Athenians is that the
participation of citizens is possible ideally in amateur-friendly societies where expertise
is not required to actively take part in political processes. Hauser (1999) points out the
Athenians were confident that public deliberation would surpass elite expertise for
steering the polis. When participation is reduced to competence in technical expertise,
average citizens find themselves mute and puzzled observers. Mansuri and Rao (2013)
argue public debate and deliberation have been a highly regarded form of governance in
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and pre-colonial Africa.
In the contemporary world, Gandhi’s notion of village self-reliance, Freire’s
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and Habermas’s communicative rationality are among the
important theoretical visions of participation along with the 18th and 19th century
articulation of participation by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill (Mansuri &
Rao, 2003; Mansuri & Rao, 2013). I do not intend to make a comprehensive review of
how the idea of participation evolved over time. In what follows, I highlight how some of
the great thinkers in history speak to the scheme of popular participation in general and
my thesis in particular. In so doing, I argue that participation is an important ideograph,
which sits at the heart of every theory of democracy, justice, and sustainable social
change.

To begin with, Vyas (1962), who studied Gandhi’s manuscripts and put them
together in the form of a book, observes, “Ancient Greek City States and village republics
of India provided specimens of all-round development of rich and puissant life” (p. 7). He
posits Gandhi’s village Swaraj3 is “a genuine and virile democracy which offers a potent
cure for many of the political ills that mark the present political systems” (p. 10).
According to Vyas (1962), Gandhi observed, “True democracy cannot be worked by
twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below by the people of every
village.” Gandhi considered the village as the decentralized, small political unit endowed
with full powers where every individual would have a direct voice in the government
(Vyas, 1962). He was against centralization because “centralization cannot be sustained
and defended without adequate force” (p. 52). The village is the locus of democratic
governance for Gandhi. “If the village perishes,” Gandhi pointed out, “India will perish
too” (p. 43). Vyas explains the government of the village will be by “a Panchayat4 of five
persons annually elected by adult villagers possessing minimum prescribed
qualifications” (pp. 9-10). According to Vyas, Gandhi envisioned a local system of
government of citizens, which is self-controlled and results in empowered citizens with a
highly developed sense of civic responsibility. Putting authority-control at bay was an
important condition for bottom-up governance to thrive. Gandhi was a firm believer in
the capacity of any people to be the architect of their own development. He argued, “As
every country is fit to eat, to drink and to breathe, even so is every nation fit to manage its

3The word Swaraj is a sacred word which means self-rule and self-restraint, and not
freedom from all restraint which “independence” often means. It means government by
the many. Where the many are immoral or selfish, their government can spell anarchy
and nothing else. (Gandhi, 1962)
4 Panchayat is the legislature, judiciary and executive rolled into one as there will be no
system of punishment in it (Vyas, 1962)

own affairs, no matter how badly” (1962, p. 16). This view is consistent with a
postcolonial thesis. This does not come as a surprise given Gandhi’s critical position in
regard to India’s colonial rule by the British. Emphasizing the need to have system of
government independent from the colonial powers, Gandhi argued, “They have systems
suited to their genius. We must have ours suited to ours” (p. 16).
Gandhi was a firm advocate of participation by all able-bodied citizens and not
only free men unlike the Athenians. He held the view that village communities should
work hard and become self-sufficient in things ranging from food to clothing to ideas for
social change. Community participation and empowerment are interrelated and
intertwined in Gandhi’s thoughts (Richards, 1991). According to Johnson (2006), Gandhi
had three “new” understandings of participation: 1) participation involves showing
ordinary people that politics continually intrudes into their daily lives, 2) people act
politically when they engage in services that can involve everyone, and 3) leaders are
those who dedicate their lives to the well-being of their communities and express their
politics through service. Mansuri and Rao (2013) contend, “Gandhi remains a central
figure in the participatory and decentralization movements in both India and the
development community at large” (p. 23).
Paulo Freire’s landmark book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is credited for playing
a key role in triggering discussions over bottom-up participation in the development
process (Angeles, 2005). A number of scholars suggest that the roots of participatory
approaches could be traced back to Freire and his 1960s activist work (Forsyth, 2005;
Francis, 2001; Long, 2001; McPhail, 2009; Servaes, 1996). Freire has provided a strong
theoretical foundation for participatory approaches to development. It is difficult to find

contemporary scholars and practitioners of development who do not draw from Freire.
Although Freire’s theorization is focused on the education of illiterate adults, it also
speaks to the participation of marginalized societies in development decision-making.
Freire’s (1993) main argument is that a pedagogy that enables marginalized
people to regain their humanity must be forged “with, not for the oppressed” (p. 53).
Pedagogy of the oppressed is “a pedagogy of people engaged in the fight for their own
liberation” (p. 53). He argues, “No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant
from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunate” (p. 54). According to Freire, the
participation of the oppressed is the struggle “for their redemption” (p. 54). He
emphasizes that liberation should be “not pseudo-participation, but committed
involvement” (p. 69). When students and teachers cooperatively engage in learning,
argues Freire, students acquire a sense of dignity and develop the ability to transform the
world around them. This argument very much informs the contemporary scholarship that
claims community empowerment is one of the most important outcomes of participatory
approaches. Freire further explains:
Critical and liberating dialogue, which presupposes action, must be carried on
with the oppressed at whatever the stage of their struggle for liberation. . . . But to
substitute monologue, slogans, and communiqués for dialogue is to attempt to
liberate the oppressed with the instruments of domestication. Attempting to
liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation
is to treat them as objects which must be saved from a burning building; it is to
lead them into the populist pitfall and transform them into masses which can be
manipulated. (p. 65)

Freire (1993) underlines the need to have trust in the oppressed and in their ability
to reason. According to Freire, “Whoever lacks in this trust will fail to initiate (or will
abandon) dialogue, reflection, and communication” (p. 66). Freire conceptualized
dialogue as a means of learning and knowing (Macedo, 2000).
The Freirian conviction in the poor’s ability to be the architects of their own
transformation has been widely influential. For example, Roger Chambers (1994), a
prominent development thinker, makes it clear that Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), a
participatory research and development method of the 1980s, and its 1990 equivalent,
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA),5owe much to the work and inspiration of Paulo
Freire.
Kulynych (1997) recognizes the strong philosophical impetus Habermas and
Foucault provided for conceptualizing participation. However, she argues that neither of
these philosophers provides “a fully satisfying solution to the difficulties of
understanding political action in this postmodern world” (p. 315). According to
Kulynych, “combining Habermas’s vision of discursive politics with Foucault’s focus on
the micro politics of resistance provides a basis for developing a more satisfying
conception that defines political participation” (p. 315).
For Habermas participation is taking part in communicatively achieved argument
and negotiation. Habermas distinguishes two types of communicative actions: a form of
problem-solving or decision-oriented deliberation, which occurs in such places as
parliament, and informal opinion-formation, which is open and inclusive (Kulynych,

5According to Chambers (1994), RRA and PRA are two closely related families of
approaches and of methods used “to enable rural people to share, enhance, and analyze
their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act” (p. 953).

1997). The later aspect of Habermas’s theory of communicative rationality speaks to
participation in grassroots development. According to Habermas’s theory of rationality,
what is right and the better way of doing development, for instance, is to be determined
solely by the participants in that process of deliberation. This is in line with the rather
ideal tenets of participatory development. Habermas (1983) sees communicative
rationality as “unconstrained, unifying, consensus-bringing force of argumentative
speech” (p. 10).
Foucault argues that the exercise of power has taken new forms in the modern era
(Taylor, 2011). Foucault (1983) sees power not as a “thing” but as relational and always
residing everywhere, interwoven with social interactions, including relationships of
communication. For Foucault, communicating is a certain way of acting upon another
person or persons. Foucault (1983) makes it clear that private ventures, welfare societies,
benefactors, and philanthropists, as he conceptualizes it, can exercise power. NGOs
cannot be free from the analysis of power relationships simply because they are in the
business of “empowering” communities. For example, Hailey (2001) uses a Foucauldian
analysis of power as a frame to question the “formulaic approaches” of South Asian
NGOs to participatory development. He argues Foucault would suggest that we would
never gain a critical insight into their real role and influence unless we understand why
the development community in general and development “experts” in particular, promote
such participative approaches (p. 97).
Foucault gives us the theoretical basis for the explanation of how the poor and
less powerful could be deprived of agency in the process of social change. Drawing from
Foucault’s idea of the “knowledge-power” nexus, Angeles (2005) argues, “the push for

participation and use of participatory development approaches by international funding
agencies and intermediary NGOs becomes a new form of ‘tyranny’ or ‘social control’
that only results in the greater manageability of the poor and other supposed beneficiaries
of development initiatives” (p. 511).
Edward Said’s (1979) influential book, Orientalism, does a very good job of
grounding issues of participation in postcolonial theory. Said critically observes how
Western discourses about the Third World dictate thoughts and actions. Orientalism is
about the organized rhetorical portrayal of the Middle Eastern other by the West.
Orientalism, Said argues, is used to justify attempts to spread democracy and Eurocentric
ways to the Middle East. Orientalism, in the words of Said (1979), “was a project
uniquely able to override objections of those who were consulted and, in improving the
Orient as a whole, to do what scheming Egyptians, perfidious Chinese, and half-naked
Indians could never have done for themselves” (p. 90). Said (1979) contends
understanding discourses surrounding Orientalism is key to appreciating the systems
European culture employed to manage and even produce “the Orient politically,
sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically and imaginatively during the post-
Enlightenment period” (p. 3).
Said (2009) believes the preconceived ideas of the West about the Orient are
fundamentally distorted. Orientals were largely portrayed “not as citizens, or even people,
but as problems to be solved or confined or . . . taken over” (p. 207). He sees
representation of other cultural units as problematic when those people are categorized
into a stereotyped position and when they are spoken about and spoken for in certain
ways. Thus, he tries to deconstruct Eurocentric discourses that perpetuate colonialism and

the forms of representation that emerges from colonialism. He does this by situating his
analysis of Oriental discourses within the historical context of the conquest of others by
the Western imperial powers (most importantly the British and the French). He also
discusses Americans’ experience with the Orient, which is more indirect rather than direct
colonial occupation. In relation to Said’s postcolonial theorization, I seek to understand if
the portrayal of the people of Africa as “barbaric,” “backward,” and “incompetent” might
have affected the discourses and operations of Western-based NGOs working in Ethiopia.
Said is mainly concerned with issues of cultural hegemony and lack of
opportunities for the subaltern communities to speak for themselves. This concern is
consistent with Foucault’s idea of power that is created as a result of structural
dissemination of discourses. Based on the proceeding theoretical backdrops, I take the
position that the poor and marginalized should have a major role in all stages of
development. I adopt this standpoint because I believe genuine dialogue between NGO
development workers and citizen experiences would provide some discursive space for
the invention of better ideas for social change. With these theoretical foundations of
participation in mind, I examine contemporary conceptualizations of participation and
participatory development practices of NGOs.
Participation: Meaning, Rhetoric and Reality
Although the need for more participation in the development process is generally
acknowledged, participation is a fluid concept which continues to evolve. Behera (2006)
argues, like the concept of development, the concept of participation is a changing reality.
Ever changing global political and economic orders explain the changes in the essence of
participation. For example community participation in the Global South during the

colonial era cannot be similar to participation in the postcolonial period. Chambers
(2005) argues, “Participation has no final meaning. It is not a rock. It is mobile and
malleable, an amoeba, a sculptor’s clay, a plasticine shaped as it passes from hand to
hand” (p. 104). Participation is a rich concept, which means different things to different
people. For some, participation is an end in itself; for others, it is a means to reach a
certain goal (Servaes, 1996; World Bank, 1996). The definitions of participation vary
(Chambers, 2005; Schneider & Libercier, 1995). For example, Long (2001) defines it as
“involvement of poor and marginalized people in decision-making roles regarding all
important aspects of donor-funded projects or policies” (p. 2). For the World Bank
(1996), participation is “a process through which stakeholders control over development
initiatives and the decisions which affect them” (p. xi). If this is the way participation in
general is conceptualized, what, then, is community participation? “By ‘community
participation’ we mean facilitating the active involvement of different community groups,
together with other stakeholders involved, and the many development and research agents
working with the community and decision makers” (Bessette, 2004, p. 1)
The main assumption of participatory development is that local people realize
their potential and that outsiders simply facilitate their discovery of themselves
(Chambers, 2005; Pant, 2009; White 1999). According to Pant (2009), the organizing
takes place “in an empowering way and also in a sustainable way so that when the
outsider exits from the community, the community can continue on its own as it has
achieved the variable of self-reliance above all other attributes” (p. 544). Participatory
approaches claim people are the most important elements of development. It is a people-
centered approach (Chambers, 2005; White, 1999). Participation also entails the belief

that every person’s voice is equal (White, 1999). Participatory approaches see problems
of development as inherently resulting from structural power inequality (Littlejohn &
Foss, 2009). Thus, such approaches advance the proposition that marginalized
communities can control their own social change. There is a widely shared view among
development practitioners that without commitment, creativity, energy, and involvement
of communities, the pace of development will not accelerate (Manuri & Rao, 2013; Pant,
2009). “The bottom line,” Chambers (2005) writes, “is empowering of those who are
marginalized, powerless and poor” (p. 87). Schneider and Libercier (1995) see
participation in decision making as a key indicator of genuine participation along with
empowerment.
As much as there is a widespread adoption of the rhetoric of participation in
development, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes meaningful and effective
participation. There is variation in the ways the degree of participation is described.
Some scholars prefer to view participation along a continuum with passive participation
on one end and self-mobilization on the other (Chambers, 2005; Kumar, 2002).
Participation is believed to thrive in democratic systems and contribute to
democratization. Pant (2009) argues that participation can be coercive and manipulative
in nondemocratic societies. Even in a nation considered to be democratic, it is possible
for some groups to lack sufficient free space for deliberations. Evans and Boyte (1992)
argue that the concept of direct participation involved the idea of free and active debating
from ancient Greece. They contend that particular uncontrolled public places in a
community become important venues for alternative discourses to develop. According to
Evans and Boyte free spaces are:

The environments in which people are able to learn a new self-respect, a deeper
and more assertive group identity, public skills, and values of cooperation and
civic virtue. Put simply, free spaces are settings between private lives and large-
scale institutions where ordinary citizens can act with dignity, independence and
vision. These are, in the main, voluntary forms of association with a relatively
open with and participatory character-many religious organizations, clubs, self-
help and mutual aid societies, reform groups, neighborhood, civic, and ethnic
groups, and a host of other associations grounded in the fabric of community
life. (pp. 17-18)
Evans and Boyte (1992) also claim that people use such free spaces as places to exercise
“a schooling in citizenship” and learn “a vision of the common good in the course of
struggling for change (p.18).
The other bone of contention in the development debate is what expertise is and the
appropriate roles of citizens and experts. While development discourse largely embraces
increased community participation as beneficial in decisions that require relatively more
local knowledge, there is a debate over whether communities should be involved in
projects that require expertise. On this view, communities remedy their lack of technical
knowledge by contracting out decisions to experts. “Expertise” itself is defined
discursively by the powerful. Foucault talks about knowledge as constituted in discourse.
For Foucault power and knowledge imply, implicate and presuppose one another (Foss et
al., 2002).
There seems to be a paradox in calling for a greater participation of the oppressed
and claiming only a certain type of knowledge is expert knowledge. Gough et al. (2003)

argue, “In parallel to an increased commitment to ‘democratic’ practices over the past
few centuries, knowledge has become increasingly the domain of ‘scientific’ expertise
and oriented mainly toward producing end results” (p. 39). Khwaja (2004) develops a
model that predicts community participation may not always be desirable. He uses
primary data on development projects in Northern Pakistan to provide empirical support
for this prediction. The study concludes, “While community participation improves
project outcomes in nontechnical decisions, increasing community participation in
technical decisions actually leads to worse project outcomes” (p. 427).
As professionals, international NGO workers generally tend to favor scientific
rationality over indigenous knowledge and communicative rationality. Whereas scientists
believe in science as a superior approach to understanding and explaining reality, those
who embrace communicative rationality argue that people can reach at better solutions to
specific problems through a collaborative process of communication. I argue that experts
tend to portray science as the only way of knowing, usually with the motive of
suppressing the voices of those lacking scientific knowledge. Servaes (1996) is critical of
the effort to further marginalize the poor under the guise of lack of “expertise.”
The assertion of knowledge gap, of a disparity in valid knowledge between
“experts” and local people, is wrong. Unless the “experts” through cooperation
and learning from local people, can apply their knowledge in the context and to
the benefit of those locals, “expertise,” remains not much more than piety.
Attitude is paramount for the facilitator. He/She must truly believe that the
participants are not only capable, but are indeed the most qualified persons for the
task at hand. (p. 24)

Similarly, Gough et al. (2003) underline the need to avoid the notion of correct (expert)
perceptions and incorrect (non-expert) perceptions within the social change debate. They
recognize the tensions between the calls for “public participation” as a political good in
itself and as a technique for the future enhancement of expert knowledge.
A lot of development organizations pay lip service to the fashionable concept of
participation. Robert Chambers (2005) observes that there may be a wide gap between
the senses in which participation is used and the reality on the ground. Scholars contend
the reality of participation has often differed from the rhetoric (Chambers, 1999; White,
1999). Despite the participatory rhetoric, practices in development remain top-down.
“People’s participation,” White (1999) posits, “was easy to talk about, hard to achieve,”
(p. 12). She further notes, “Authentic participation of grassroots people is more an ideal
than a reality” (p. 16). Similarly Simmons (2007) contends that current models of public
participation are “ineffective for involving the public in the decision-making process in
ethical and significant ways.” She argues public participation practices focused on either
bombarding the publics with a one-way communication or holding meetings in which the
public could make comments but not influence final policies.” She further explains,
“citizens have very little say and almost no power” to influence decisions “even when it
affects their own neighborhoods” (p. 3). For Mafalopulos (2008), “Frequently what is
often referred to as ‘participation’ in many cases is not, at least not in a significant way”
(p. 9).
Participation is about power relations. Chambers (2005) suggests the gaps
between the rhetoric and practice in local participation surfaces when we look into who

participates, what institutions are involved, and the objectives and functions of
participation.
When it is not done right, White (1999) argues, participation becomes “pseudo-
participation at best” (p. 338). Other than labeling non-participatory practices as
participation, discourses of participatory development, according to some scholars, may
legitimate and mask tyranny (Baaz, 2005; Cook & Kothari, 2001). Practices that are
taken on face value as participatory may end up serving the interests of the powerful.
The Link between NGOs’ Discourses and Approaches to Development
Terms that we put to use in development discourses are never neutral and static.
According to Cornwall and Brock (2005), terms come to be given meaning as they are
used in policies and these policies, in turn, influence how those who work in development
come to think about what they are doing. They suggest that discursive framings are
important in shaping development practices, even if a host of other factors come into play
in affecting what actually happens on the ground. Making sense of what influence
“buzzwords” like participation have on development calls for paying closer attention to
the discourses they are embedded in (Cornwall & Brock, 2005). Although participation is
a politically desirable development idea, different institutions frame participation
differently and sign up for it for different reasons (Mosse, 2003).
“The mainstreaming of participation,” write Mansuri and Rao (2003), “has made
it an instrument for promoting pragmatic policy interests, such as cost-effective delivery,
low costs of maintenance etc. rather than a vehicle for radical transformation of society”
(pp. 8-9). Mansuri and Rao argue that participation has been described both in Asia and
Africa as a form of forced labor where the poor are coerced into making contributions

that are far more substantial than those made by the rich. Additionally, they elaborate on
this particular meaning of participation:
During the 1980s, earlier people-centered narratives of popular participation met
the exigencies arising out of neoliberal reforms and the realities of the rolled-back
state. Community participation became a channel through which popular
participation began to be operationalized. In the process, it took a rather different
shape than that conveyed by the statements of intent that preceded it. Rather than
seeking to involve “the people” in defining their own development, 1980s
community participation largely focused on engaging “intended beneficiaries” in
development projects. Cost-sharing and the co-production of services emerged as
dominant modes of participation; the concept of ownership began to be stripped
of any association with a transfer of power and control and invoked to describe
the need for people to make contributions in cash or kind to support these
processes. (p. 9)
Although there have been certain changes in the discursive constructions and practices of
participation in later years (owing to historical circumstances like grassroots resistance to
policies of Structural Adjustment Programs of the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund), keeping costs down through community contributions remains a
dominant conception of participation (Cornwall & Brock, 2005). There is an effort on the
part of the powerful development actors like experts working for NGOs to frame
participation as inclusion of the disenfranchised in expert-initiated, mostly Western
projects. Servaes (1996) considers this a major misconception of development
practitioners. “Participation,” he argues, “should not be constructed as the inclusion of

the poor in government programs and services, but rather the formulation of government
programs and services as per the informed and autonomous choice of the poor” (p. 24).
In the case of Africa, the top-down, modernization theory of development has
been abandoned. However, there is no agreement on a replacement narrative. “Some
African philosophers,” Jacobson (2004) writes, “would embrace the West’s approach to
knowledge. But many embrace a more postmodernist approach. And others would seek
different alternatives still. They would seek a uniquely African style of thinking” (p. 65).
I take an African standpoint approach in analyzing participation discourses.
According to Allen (1996), “standpoint theory is based on the idea that the world looks
different depending on one’s social location” (p. 178). Parallel to Allen’s argument, I
would say this theory allows me to speak from and about African experiences. My five
years of experience working at the grassroots level as a Communications Officer and
Coordinator for an international NGO is a point of entry. Standpoint theory offers me a
frame to identify instances of domination, exploitation, and hegemony. Allen uses
standpoint to theorize about organizational socialization of black women. However, she
indicates that it can be used to study any marginalized groups of persons. By taking an
Afrocentric standpoint, I am able to focus specifically on an Ethiopian context and
contribute to the theorizing on community-level deliberations. Allen contends context
matters in the construction of reality and urges researchers to consider political and
historical contexts in an effort to create knowledge.
Reliance upon local knowledge and local capability might be a good place to
improve engagement with African communities. According to Asante (2004), any
discussion of communication or development in Africa must begin with the conception of

Africans as actors, not spectators, to the major transformations on the continent. Asante is
critical of African scholars abandoning their historical experiences to imitate what had
occurred elsewhere. “Development,” he argues, “if it is to be anything, in the context of
African agency must mean the arrival of African people to a social, cultural, and
economic place where the philosophies, opinions, and technologies supporting
communication reflect Africa’s best interests and not those of former colonial or
conquering powers” (p.6).
Behera (2006) posits that development discourses have levels ranging from the
policy level at which international aid agencies set objectives and priorities to grassroots
dialogues between development actors. I assume most development rhetoric originates
from the international headquarters of NGOs and multilateral organizations. Mosse
(2003) suggests “participation” is primarily a form of representation oriented towards
concerns that are external to the location. He says such representations do not speak
directly to local practice and provide little clue to implementation.
How to turn “participation” from policy texts into meaningful grassroots practices
is another important challenge of community development. NGOs are there to implement
policies and serve as bridges between the global and the local. Owing to their funding
links they are accountable to international aid agencies and states. At least theoretically,
they are also accountable to the rural communities they are supposed to work with, not to
mention the host country’s national and local governmental bodies. So this multiple
accountability puts them in a conflicted position when it comes to interpreting and acting
upon participation discourses. For example, NGO discourses usually take “community”
as a homogenous group or recognize only certain major categories like the poor, the

youth, men or women. But in reality there are a lot of grassroots social, cultural, and class
dynamics that need to be taken into consideration in talking about voice and participation.
Behera (2006) argues, for example, within the category “women,” there are multiple
subcategories like literates and illiterates, rich and poor, high and low class, most often
mutually non-exclusive, who have multiple, sometimes conflicting identities. He says,
“participatory development loses its meaning if such diversities within a category are not
given due recognition in the development strategies of rural people” (p. 39).
The model of participatory communication should be based “on dialogue rather
than monologue, horizontal rather than vertical information sharing, social rather than
individual change, and equitable participation, local ownership and empowerment”
(Kincaid & Figueroa, 2009, p. 509). I examined these communication practices in the
communities I studied.
Research Questions
Along with the problematics and tensions highlighted above, this study addresses
four main research questions:
Q1: Around what ideographs do development agencies organize their discourses of
participatory development? Why these particular ideographs?
Q2: How is participatory development enacted in actual community interactions with
Oxfam and World Vision staff? Whose voices are heard?
Q3: How conducive are the discursive spaces used by/available to NGOs in Ethiopia
for promoting the engagement of communities in public deliberations?
RQ4: How closely do NGOs’ international discourses of community participation
resemble the communication among grassroots development stakeholders in
rural Ethiopia?

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
In this chapter I explain the methods used in my study. By “methods” I mean the
strategies and procedures I used for collecting and reading discourses, and for opening
them to others. I describe the steps I followed in identifying rhetorical artifacts,
generating field data, and in analyzing, interpreting and theorizing. I start by outlining the
assumptions of the research approach I employ. Then, I provide justifications for using
multiple methods grounded in different traditions for the current study. Finally, I specify
the procedures used in this study.
Regarding my philosophical assumptions, I embrace the existence of multiple
realities and that these realities are socially constructed through rhetoric. I try to
understand the realities of the two organizations I am studying and that of the study
communities. I do not presume a priori knowledge, for example, about how participation
is framed in their discourses and enacted during deliberations over grassroots
development. I remained open to learning from the textual analysis and field observations
I conducted. I maintain the view that my research should contain an action agenda for
reform that may change the lives of participants (Creswell, 2007). Hess (2011) argues
rhetorical ethnographers fulfill “multiple roles of researcher, advocate, and observer” (p.
137).
In my research design decisions, I considered potential shortcomings resulting
from ways in which my advocacy/participatory stance would affect my description,
interpretation and theorization. It is understood that rhetorical criticism actively involves
the personality of the researcher. Kuypers (2005) argues, “The very choices of what to
study, and how and why to study a rhetorical artifact, are heavily influenced by the

personal qualities of the researcher” (p. 15). Thus, I was self-reflective throughout the
research process about my worldviews, my affiliations with the organizations and
communities I studied, my scholarly orientations, and how I saw specific situations.
Guided by Michael McGee’s notion of ideographic criticism, I employ, in this
study, a mixture of textual criticism and field methods. I used multiple methods of
reading discourses first because of the diverse nature of my research questions. For
example, research question one – Around what ideographs do Oxfam GB and World
Vision organize their discourses of participatory development — is best suited to the
textual analysis of rhetorical artifacts. While question number two — How is participatory
development enacted in actual community interactions with Oxfam and World Vision staff?
Whose voices are heard? — calls for use of ethnographic methods. Foss (2009) sees
rhetorical criticism as the systematic study of “symbolic acts and artifacts” (p. 6)
(emphasis is mine). She explains that an act is a performance presented to a live
audience while artifact is the transcribed, printed, recorded or preserved version of the
act. In my study I will investigate both rhetorical acts and artifacts. So my use of diverse
methods, which suit the investigation of both acts and artifacts, are well justified.
Second, my focus is on “reading” organizational rhetoric better, rather than on use
of specific methods religiously (Hoffman & Ford, 2010). Zarefsky (2006) argues, “The
task has been not to apply a fixed method so much as to illumine the text” (p. 385).
Similarly Kuypers (2005) writes, “Rhetorical critics use a variety of ways when
examining a particular rhetorical artifact, with some critics even developing their own
unique perspective to better examine a rhetorical artifact” (p. 15). This overarching goal
guides my choice of methods and the entire research project. I will not try to strictly

adhere to the requirements of a single method of studying rhetoric for “[it] is neither
possible nor desirable for criticism to be fixed into a system” (Black, 1965, p. xi).
Mainly, I will use methods of textual analysis associated with rhetorical criticism
and methods of participant observation and interviews associated with the ethnographic
tradition. The textual analysis will help in highlighting the dimensions of the rhetorical
situation, particularly strategies of persuasion and power differentials embedded in the
rhetorical artifacts crafted by Oxfam GB and World Vision. The ethnographic approach
provides better tools for the study of grassroots “live rhetoric” and vernacular advocacy
(Hauser, 1999). Along these lines, Hess (2011) argues, “The dual methodologies [of
textual analysis and ethnography] provide rhetorical scholars with an application of
rhetorical theory and concepts through the direct observation of and participation with
localized discourses and advocacy” (p. 132).
The alliance of rhetorical criticism and ethnography has thrived over the last
couple of decades (Conquergood, 1992; Hess, 2011; Middleton, Senda-Cook & Endres,
2011). Current studies in the field of rhetoric indicate that rhetoricians are increasingly
adopting ethnographic field methods. Middleton et al. (2011) give a list of rhetoricians
who recently used focus groups, participant observations and interviews in their studies.
Hess (2011) coined the term “critical-rhetorical ethnography” (p. 127) to show the
affinities and conceptual border-crossings between two longstanding traditions in the
study of communication. Middleton et al. call such an approach “rhetorical field
methods.” Gerzelsky (2004), who draws the critical ethnographers’ attention to figurative
language, especially metaphor, calls for the use of “rhetorical ethnography” (p. 73).
While some scholars (mostly ethnographers) seem to call for the embedding of rhetoric in

cultural studies (Gaillet, 2004; Gorzelsky, 2004), others suggest incorporating
ethnography into rhetorical studies (Hess, 2011; McCormic, 2003; Middleton, Senda-
Cook & Endres, 2011).
The one thing widely agreed on is that each discipline will be enriched by
employing the other. In this regard, Gaillet (2004) posits that the “cross-fertilization” of
rhetorical studies and ethnography “enriches both disciplines and offers fruits for analysis
that yield a beautiful harvest” (p. 109). He went on to argue that “the marriage of
ethnography and civic rhetoric has the power to transform institutions and communities
when ethnographic practice is determined by local exigencies” (p. 109).
Drawing from both rhetorical and qualitative research scholarship, Hess argues
that crossing the border of ethnography provides scholars of rhetoric with “a locally
situated and experimental approach to the process and production of rhetorical texts” (p.
128). He contends that this method is meant to “give rhetoricians an insider perspective”
and equips them to “both evaluate and to enact arguments in service of the vernacular”
(p. 128). Similarly, Middleton et al. (2011) claim that “efforts at in situ rhetorical
analysis are valuable because they sharpen the ability for CR [critical rhetoric] to engage
seriously the voices of marginalized rhetorical communities and mundane discourses that
often evade crucial attention” (p. 387). They see the potential for rhetorical field methods
“to analyze situations in which meanings depend on places, physical structures, spatial
delineations, interactive bodies, and in-the-moment choices” (p. 388). “If ethnographers
have enriched their practice with rhetorical insights and methods,” Conquergood (1992)
writes, “rhetoricians likewise have much to gain from ethnography, particularly

understanding of the cultural constructedness of key concepts such as ‘reason’ that has
characterized rhetoric in the West from Plato to Perelman” (p. 81).
The present study benefits from these “border-crossing” traditions (Cheney, 2000;
Krone, 2000). Cheney (2000) identifies “integration,” “crossing,” and “interplay” as
ways different paradigms may be related to one another (pp. 38-40). In my study, the
paradigms could “speak to one another” in a combination of ways (p. 38). The multiple
methods approach I chose to use is in line with the current trends of scope and
methodological expansions in rhetorical studies. Rhetorical criticism, which was once
limited to pragmatic textual analyses of widely circulated speeches given by prominent
speakers, has widened its scope to include critical investigation of “everyday” “live”
rhetoric (Middleton et al., 2011, p.387). In the case of Ethiopia, a rhetorical study would
be incomplete if it left out “live” rhetoric. It is largely an oral culture where one finds a
great deal of undocumented rhetoric.
In this study, I set one foot on traditional textual analysis and the other foot on
field study. First, I carried out a textual analysis of organizational discourses created by
the UN, the World Bank, Oxfam GB and World Vision at the global and national levels.
Then I employed an ethnographic approach to study rhetoric within everyday
communication between stakeholders of NGO-initiated development in selected localities
in Ethiopia. In what follows, I elaborate on the two main methods I used in this study.
Rhetorical Criticism
Discussions of rhetorical criticism often start with defining the term “rhetoric.”
Scholars do this because of commonly held tendency to view “rhetoric” in its pejorative
sense as ”flowery speech,” “ornamental speech,” and “mere rhetoric”; all of which imply

that rhetoric is empty language without substance. None of these expressions describe
how “rhetoric” is used in rhetorical criticism in general and in this study in particular. In
this context, rhetoric refers to the strategic use of symbols to communicate meaning to
audiences and achieve goals (Foss, 2009; Hoffman & Ford, 2010; Kuypers & King,
2009). Foss explains the three primary dimensions included in her definition: 1) humans
are the creators of rhetoric; 2) symbols are the creators of rhetoric; and 3) communication
is the purpose of rhetoric. Similarly, Kuypers and King (2009) emphasize that rhetoric
involves making intentional language choices to achieve “specifiable goals” (p. 5). It is
also important that communicators attempt to persuade their audiences by presenting an
idea that “will probably be better than another” (p. 7).
In order to explain the persuasive deployment and ideological positioning of in the discourses of Oxfam GB and World Vision, I employ the method
of rhetorical criticism. Foss (2009) defines rhetorical criticism as “a qualitative research
method that is designed for the systematic investigation of symbolic acts and artifacts for
the purpose of understanding rhetorical process” (p. 6). For Condit and Bates (2009),
rhetorical criticism is “the study of ways in which symbolic components of particular
discourses shape or constitute beliefs, attitudes, and actions” (p. 109). Kuypers (2005)
defines rhetorical criticism as “the systematic process of illuminating and evaluating”
rhetorical acts with the purpose of opening the work to others (p. 13).
I carefully selected rhetorical artifacts that represent organizational commitments.
These include reports, policy documents, position papers, publicity items, proceedings,
and minutes from international headquarters, national offices and field sites of Oxfam GB
and World Vision. Once I identified the relevant artifacts I carried out a critical textual

analysis. As a rhetorical critic my task is “to look beneath the surface and between the
lines, in order to perceive and explicate” underlying rhetorical dynamics (Zarefsky, 2006,
p.385).
The general goals of rhetorical criticism are to understand how discourse works to
initiate and sustain changes within the communication environment and to bring about
change in the world (Condit & Bates, 2009; Deetz, 2001; Zarefsky, 2006). The changes
occur at the conceptual and social levels (Condit & Bates, 2009). At the conceptual level,
rhetorical criticism contributes to rhetorical theory. In this regard, this study focuses on
unearthing and critiquing ideological positions wrapped in discourses surrounding
participatory community development.
In terms of contributing to theorization in rhetoric, the current study gives
explanation to how the rhetoric of has developed and been used in the
context of nonprofit organizations with special focus on Oxfam GB and World Vision-
initiated grassroots development in Ethiopia. The study offers answers to the four
research questions I posed. Admittedly, I am going to theorize about rhetorical
phenomena and process in the interactions between NGOs and beneficiary communities
in Ethiopia based on investigation of limited artifacts and rhetorical acts. However, I
believe the study is a useful contribution given its rare focus on discourses of in the context of NGOs of Western origin that are operating in the Global
South.
There are different approaches to the study of rhetorical criticism. The oldest
method of criticism used in modern communication studies is neo-Aristotelian or the neo-
classical method of criticism outlined by Herbert A. Wichelns’ 1925 essay, “The Literary

Criticism of Oratory” (Foss, 2009). For Wichelns, rhetorical criticism focuses on,
“discovering and appreciating how speakers adapt their ideas to particular audiences”
(Burgchardt, 2005, p. 1). Neo-Aristotelian criticism went “unchallenged” as the only
method of rhetorical criticism until the 1960s (Foss, p. 22). This framework has been
criticized for restricting criticism to the study of effects and rational appeal (disregarding
competing values and non-rational appeals) (Burghchardt, 2005; Foss, 2009; Lee, 2005;
Wander, 1983). One of the fierce critics of neo-Aristotelian criticism was Edwin Black.
In his 1965 book, Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Methods, he demonstrated the
inadequacies of the traditional method. Black suggested in his 1970 essay, “The Second
Persona,” that we can also discover through the analysis of rhetorical texts what audience
is implied by the discourse, as opposed to the fixation of neo-Aristotelian criticism on
how discourses are fitted to the rhetorical situation and pre-existing targeted audiences
(Burgchardt, 2005). In general, I would say the criticism of the Neo-Aristotelian
approach led to the emergence of critical approaches to the study of rhetoric. One of these
critical methods of rhetorical criticism is ideological criticism.
The introduction of ideology in rhetorical criticism is commonly known as the
“ideological turn in criticism” (Foss, 2005; Lee, 2005). Philip Wander played an
important role in emphasizing the role of ideology (Burgchardt, 2005; Lee, 2005). In
ideological approach to criticism the focus shifts from surface level, pragmatic analysis to
looking beyond the surface structure of an artifact to find out the beliefs, values and
assumptions suggested by the messages (Foss, 2009). Lee (2005) argues that critics are
dealing with ideology, once they start to ask, “Whose interests are served by these
messages that construct this particular version of the truth?” (p. 307). Lee (2005) sees

ideology as “a particular way of looking at the world that is constituted by the
relationships between truth, discourse, and power” (p. 308). Foss (2009) defines ideology
as “a pattern of beliefs that determines a group’s interpretations of some aspect(s) of the
world” (p. 209). According to Lee (2005), ideology is a concept so broadly defined that it
becomes difficult to find any discourse that does not fall under this category. He
explained that we are interested in ideology when we ask questions like: “To what extent
are these ideas true or false? What forces perpetuate these particular ideas? What groups
benefit from and what groups are disadvantaged by these ideas?” (p. 307).
Hoffman and Ford (2010) outlined two basic approaches to analyzing
organizational rhetoric — “an evaluative reading approach and a critical reading
approach” (p. 104). A critic working from an evaluative approach seeks to assess the
rhetoric’s ability to meet its goal. Hoffman and Ford also noted that critics determine
effectiveness “by comparing strategies that they found in the artifact with what they have
learned about the rhetorical situation” (p. 105). They also make suggestions for how the
rhetoric could be more effective. These scholars pointed out that the evaluative approach
is rooted in two traditional approaches of rhetorical criticism — neo-Aristotelian criticism
and genre criticism. On the other hand, the critical perspective focused on “what rhetoric
reveals about how organizations create and use power” (p. 109). For Hoffman and Ford,
critics coming from this angle seek to understand how ideologies are used to gain and
maintain power in a society. Critics try to uncover the power implications of discourses.
It is this second type of criticism that guides this study. I occasionally reflect on the
effectiveness of discourses, but this is not my focus.

Ideographic Criticism
I will use ideological criticism for my study because it allows me to study the
ideologies of NGOs, which are wrapped in the discourses of participatory development. I
argue that there is ideological baggage attached to the services provided by NGOs
operating in Ethiopia. The tenets of ideological criticism allow me to study the
connections between “buzzwords” NGOs frequently use (like “participation,”
“empowerment” etc) and their ideological commitments. Ideological criticism is a type of
criticism that is perfectly in line with my position as an advocate for the marginalized.
Wander (1983) argued ideological criticism involves use of good reasoning for “engaging
in right actions” and creating “a better world” (p. 111).
At the center of ideographic criticism are terms that are “more pregnant than
propositions ever could be” (McGee, 1980, p. 455). McGee calls such terms
“ideographs.” According to McGee, an ideograph is an “ordinary-language term found in
political discourse. It is a high-order abstraction representing collective commitment to a
particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal” (p. 455). They are key orienting
terms in society. Ideographs are abstract, yet powerful (Lee, 2005). The primary function
of ideographs is to justify the exercise of power. Rhetors ask for collective commitment
and sacrifice in the name of ideographs (Lee, 2005; McGee, 1980). Examples of
ideographs in the American context would include, , , , , , , , , , and . Most of these ideographs are shared by the
Ethiopian culture, though some such as , , and
are less significant. On the other hand, Ethiopians have other

important ideographs such as , , , , , and . I have organized my
ideological criticism around , , , and other related ideographs used by Oxfam GB and World Vision to
legitimate their mode of doing in Ethiopia.
Many rhetorical scholars have used ideographic criticism to explain influential cultural
discourses (Cloud, 1990; Ewalt, 2012; Lee, 2009, Lucaites & Condit, 1990). Cloud
explained how the ideograph was used during the 1992 campaigns to
make the victims of poverty responsible for social crisis (such as the Los Angeles riots)
in America. Lucaites and Condit (1990) carried out a critical analysis of how the
ideograph is used to create uniformity and suppress the question of non-
hegemonic group Americans. Similarly Lee (2005) employed ideographic criticism in
his reflections on Senator Edward Kennedy’s use of in his 1983 “Truth and
Tolerance in America” speech.
Rhetorical Field Methods
The second phase of my study employs field methods grounded in ethnographic
traditions. Creswell (2007) defines ethnography as “a qualitative design in which the
researcher describes and interprets the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviors,
beliefs, and language of a culture-sharing group” (p. 68). Braithwaite (1997) asserts,
“Ethnography is the best social scientific method to gain access to the communicative life
of specific cultures” (p. 222). Since I am interested in the communicative encounters of
two communities in Ethiopia with NGO workers, my study qualifies as ethnography. My
research communities have a distinct culture and language. Even though limited numbers

of residents in the two research communities directly participate in meetings with Oxfam
GB and World Vision, the ones that do interact with these organizations are
representatives of their community. I am compelled to use ethnographic methods because
“any serious interrogation of ‘community’ requires inquiries into the nature and meaning
of communities themselves” (Gaillet, 2004, p. 101).
Providing a holistic description of a cultural unit is a key attribute of ethnography.
According to Lindlof and Taylor (2002), all relevant aspects of a culture are of interest to
the ethnographer. Ethnography is characterized by a prolonged engagement of the
researcher with a community. In this research, I do not claim to use ethnography in the
sense that it is used in anthropology or sociology. I am not interested in the entirety of the
culture in my research communities. As a communication scholar, my focus is on
symbolic processes and communicative practices within the settings and among the
groups I study (Elligson, 2009). I am most interested in how structures are constituted by
discourses and how power differentials affect the formation of discourses and
communication patterns. Lindlof and Taylor (2002) refer to this as “ethnography of
communication” (p. 44). Ethnography of communication draws from heritages of
anthropology, sociolinguistics, folklore studies, and semiotics. It “conceptualizes
communication as a continuous flow of information, rather than as a segmented exchange
of messages” (p. 44). Ethnography in the context of communication studies is concerned
with the relationship between symbolic practices and social structure (Lindlof & Taylor,
2002). Similarly, Stewart and Philipsen (1984) explain:
Ethnography of communication is a […] term for students of culture who view
speech as a culturally variable process and as the medium in which human

association is constituted. Scholars of hermeneutic and ethnography share
convictions that communicative meanings are deeply contexted in historical and
cultural situations, and that situated communication is not only reproductive but
also productive of common meanings. (qtd. Townsend, 2004, p. 179).
Ellingson (2009) argues that communication ethnographers need to be in various
sites for the purpose of learning about and assisting in the development, change, or
improvement of that site or other related sites. Communication ethnographers are guided
by questions like these: “How do communication practices reflect local preferences for its
form and content? How do those preferences operate systemically to generalize particular
identities and relationships among participants? How do these practices work to
constitute general forms of social reality?” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 45).
Creswell (2007) explained that there are many forms of ethnography. Among
these, he discussed two types: realist and critical ethnography. Realist ethnography is the
traditional ethnographic approach that aims at capturing an objective account of the
situation and reporting objectively on the information learned from participants at a site. I
carried out a critical ethnography. According to Creswell, it is a type of ethnographic
research in which the authors advocate for the emancipation of groups marginalized in
society. Unlike the conventional ethnographers, critical ethnographers have the
responsibility “to address processes of unfairness or injustice within a particular lived
domain” (Madison, 2005, p. 5). As a rhetorically trained participant observer, I employed
critical ethnography, first, to bring to light hidden issues of power and control in the
interactions among rural development stakeholders and, second, to offer theoretical
insights and make suggestions that will improve participation of the marginalized. I

crossed methodological borders as I tried to see with a critical lens the tensions and
fragmentations within communicative practices between stakeholders. The ethnographic
part of my study paid close attention to specific nuances of grassroots deliberations
among rural-development stakeholders.
Hess (2011) suggests that critical-rhetorical ethnographers utilize tools of data
collection common in the qualitative tradition such as participant observation and
conventional interviewing. This study employed participant observation and interviews as
methods of field data collection.
Participant Observation
I observed the interactions between NGO workers and the Ethiopian communities
they serve to understand grassroots communicative practices. Participant observation
involves going to the research sites, respecting the daily lives of individuals at the site,
and collecting a wide range of materials (Creswell, 2007).
Once I identified Oxfam GB and World Vision as case organizations, I contacted
both organizations and secured their consent to visit their national and field offices in
Ethiopia and observe their interaction with the respective communities they are serving.
Among several area development programs both NGOs have in Ethiopia, I chose two
districts in consultation with my contact persons from these NGOs. I considered cultural
distinctiveness of the communities, duration of service of the NGOs to the communities,
the magnitude of ongoing projects and activities, and accessibility of the districts and
convenience for me.
I carried out the fieldwork in Ethiopia from the first week of September until the
end of November, 2012. My three-months of fieldwork was fairly divided among the

two target research communities. Staying for about six weeks at each site, I did a
participant observation of deliberative events between the NGO workers, the
communities they serve, and local government representatives. The events included
planning workshops, project beneficiary selection, and regular saving and credit
association meetings. I stayed in a World Vision staff residence camp for five weeks.
This gave me the opportunity to spend prolonged time with the staffs and understand
their mode of operation. I ate with them in the staff cafeteria, shared office space with
two development facilitators, engaed in leisure activities, and learned a lot about their
work. My knowledge of World Vision’s organizational culture helped a lot. Since Oxfam
did not have staff residence in my research locality, I had to stay in a hotel. Still I spent
most of my time in the field with the Oxfam field worker.
Among the different roles of the observer, I first maintained the role of participant
as complete observer (non-participant-observer) position (Creswell, 2007; Lindlof &
Taylor, 2002). Studying “participation,” I did not want to remain a non-participant
observer. At the later stages of my fieldwork, I took part in the practices I came to
observe in order to gain a greater understanding (Braithwaite, 1997; Gibson & Brown,
2006). My involvement was limited to documenting, recording minutes and giving
support upon the request of organizers or participants. I participated in staff meetings and
raised questions that helped me further clarify insights gained during observations. I
made sure my participation did not in any way compromise my taking unstructured field
notes at the research sites.
My experiences working with grassroots communities in Ethiopia, my knowledge
of deliberative practices of the communities under study, and my training in rhetoric

definitely helped in planning well, capturing critical moments and making effective use
of time in the field. I speak fluently the two languages spoken in my research
communities—Afaan Oromo and Amharic. Additionally, I have five years of NGO
experience, working as a field communication practitioner. I understand how grassroots
development works in Ethiopia, specifically, and within the NGO sector, generally.
I am aware of the potential harm my biases might cause to the findings of the
study. I admit that I am a pro-poor, social change-oriented communication scholar. I am
passionate about rural communities and development initiatives aimed at making poor
people’s lives better. I have a deep desire to see the poor residents have a stronger voice
on issues that matter to them. As I pointed out in previous sections, my theoretical view
on participation of the poor in public deliberations is very much informed by postcolonial
theory and thinkers like Foucault, Freire and Habermas who Creswell (2009) identifies as
advocacy/participatory-oriented scholars along with Marx, Adorno, and Marcuse. I
strictly observed ethical standards of research and maintained my critical reading
position. My research protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review
Board of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I did not collect data in the communities I
previously worked with in order to minimize personal bias.
During the field observation, I recorded my experience with scratch notes, which
were expanded to extensive reflections upon my return from each event. My notes
included not only detailed descriptions of how discussions, if any, were conducted but
also a critical reflection on the participants’ understanding of “community participation”
and how it was enacted during a particular rhetorical situation. Hess (2011) argues,
“critical-rhetorical ethnographers should pay close attention to the moment, time, and

space of speaking” (p. 142). He further remarks that field notes should record the
argumentation scene by asking questions such as, “what is going on here?” among others.
To analyze data colleted through participant observation, I used Kenneth Burke’s
Dramatistic Method, which offers a logical approach to understanding human motives.
The pentadic framework is used by criticl reserachers to analyze human motivation as
embedded in symbolic actions. In chapter five, I will further explain what pedtadic
analysis provides to my study.
In-depth Interviews
I interviewed a purposive sample of informants from community members to
NGO workers to key informants/scholars in the field. Hess (2011) argues, “As
explorations into the cultural kairos and invention of the organization, interviews provide
the critical-rhetorical ethnographer with firsthand and immediate interpretive accounts of
how the message is received” (p. 142). I conducted both ethnographic and key informant
interviews. The ethnographic interviews were conversational or situational conversations,
which provided the opportunity to follow through with what the participant observation
captures (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The “stand-alone” informant interviews were used to
illicit information from organizational insiders (those who are engaged in policy-making
and crafting messages) and community opinion leaders (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002).
The interviews were guided by two separate interview protocols. Interviews with
community members were directed at the effect of NGOs’ organizational rhetoric. For
example, I asked participants about the similarities and differences between collaboration
as it is traditionally conceived in their community and the way it is being used in their
collaboration with Oxfam GB or World Vision. I asked who is more powerful in setting

the rules for participation. When it comes to questions directed at the NGO workers, I
asked participants to talk about invention of discourses surrounding “community
participation,” organizational norms for democracy, and deliberations with community
members.
All interviews were face-to-face and in the first language of interviewees. I asked
a series of semi-structured open-ended questions. This allowed for flexibility and
adaptation of wording appropriate for specific study areas (Gibson & Brown, 2006).
According to Gibson and Brown, this approach also makes it possible to better engage
participants by being sensitive to the natural flow of conversation by not sticking to any
particular order of presenting the questions. I have interviewed 64 local community
members, NGO workers, government officials and scholars in the field. Although
participants were purposely selected the voice of every development stakeholder is
included in the study.
Procedures for the Analysis of Ideographs
Guided by McGee’s theory of ideographic criticism, I followed three steps in
doing rhetorical analysis: 1) identification of ideographs, 2) the construction of
ideographic clusters, and 3) the interpretation of the clusters by mapping of discursive
shifts and illuminating important changes in ideology (Lee, 2005; McGee, 1980; Walts,
2006).
As discussed in the previous sections, I gathered two types of data to understand
the rhetoric of “participatory development” discourses and identify ideographs. First, I
generated data through textual analysis of public discourses surrounding participatory
development. I tried to gain insights into the types of messages that Oxfam GB and

World Vision disseminate with focus on identification of the major ideographs around
which they organize their messages and actions. Second, I organized, transcribed
(audios), and sorted field data. Then I read through the data and tried to make sense of
them. Next, I looked for key words and phrases that capture the ideology of the users.
Ideographs are easy to identify since we encounter them daily in the media, in the school
classroom, and in “everyday conversation” (Lee, 2005, p. 317). Ideographs, writes
McGee (1980), “exist in real discourse, functioning clearly and evidently as agents of
political consciousness. They are not invented by observers” (p. 456).
Ideographic criticism goes beyond identifying the ideographs. Ideographs do not
exist in a vacuum. A rhetorical critic has to describe the historical context in which the
ideograph functioned and the contractions and expansion in meaning across time. Once I
identified all possible ideographs in the discourse of my case organizations, I did a
diachronic or vertical study of the ideographs connecting those ideographs with their
historical roots and showing how meanings evolved over time. The diachronic analysis
helps me to understand the ideographs’ historical implications (McGee, 1980).
“Awareness of the way an ideograph can be meaningful now,” McGee argues, “is
controlled in large part by what it meant then” (p.459). As a result, I analyzed discourses
of participatory development situating them in historical contexts.
The second step involved putting the ideographs into clusters. Clustering of
ideographs becomes important because “an ideograph is always understood in
relationship to another” (McGee, p. 461). At this stage, I mapped the terms “radiating
from the slogans originally used to rationalize” an ideology (McGee, p.461).

Finally, I made a critical analysis by way of giving detailed descriptions and
showing different functions of clusters of the slogans through synchronic relationships
with other ideographs. This step constitutes the bulk of the work for this dissertation. In
addition, this step establishes the dominant ideologies present within the discourses of the
case organizations and communities. I extensively dealt with the constitutive roles of
discourses and their role in justifying subsequent actions.
In the preceding chapters, I explained the importance of my research topic, the
theoretical frame I chose, and my methods of study. In addition, I have reviewed
literature relevant to my topic with the aim of mapping the theoretical and practical
contexts and indicating the potential contributions of my study. I detail my findings in the
next three chapters.

CHAPTER 4: AS AN IDOGRAPH
This chapter answers research question number one: Around what ideographs do
development agencies organize their discourses of participatory development? Why these
particular ideographs? The chapter has three parts. In the first part, I trace the origins of
the ideograph in the post-World War II discourses of
international development. To this end, I study “community participation” as it is used
mainly in key texts generated by the United Nations and the World Bank since 1950. Of
all the international agencies of development, I chose to focus on the discourses of the
UN and the World Bank because these two organizations have had the strongest ties to
NGOs (Ahmed & Potter, 2006; Hewitt, 2000). They were also the key organizations that
promoted the idea of in grassroots development.
In the second part of the chapter, I analyze Oxfam and World Vision’s rhetoric of
in the last three decades. Most of the NGOs, as we know
them today, were born in large numbers and became important actors of international
development in the age of globalization. According to Feeney (1998), NGOs based in
industrialized countries grew from, 600 in 1980 to 22,970 in 1993. In developing
countries, too, there has been an “explosion” in the number of NGOs (Feeney, 1998, p.
25). These were also the decades in which donor agencies recognized NGOs as allies in
international development and started to work with them.
In the third part, I examine the Ethiopian government’s rhetoric of . The state is an important stakeholder in national development. The
rhetorical interaction between Western agencies and political discourse in Ethiopia will
provide a fuller picture of the discursive landscape. This analysis partly addresses

research question number three: How conducive are the discursive spaces used
by/available to NGOs in Ethiopia for promoting the engagement of communities in public
deliberations? I explain how the Ethiopian government frames , , and related concepts by analyzing a sample of relevant texts from the
database of the Ethiopian News Agency.
As stated in chapter three, I follow a three-step approach in doing ideographic
criticism. First, I identify key ideographs around which development agents wrapped
their discourses of participatory development. Second, I situate the ideographs in the
specific historical context in which they functioned while also studying continuities or
changes in meaning across time. With the aim of establishing the contexts in which the
ideograph has been used, I give a brief historical account of
the focus of international development at different times after World War II. Finally, I put
ideographs, at each period, in clusters to better understand the tensions among their
meanings and critically reflect on the different functions they serve.
In this chapter, I study and other related ideographs as
they are used in the context of development. Hettne (1995) contends, “Development is
one of the oldest and most powerful of all Western ideas” (p. 29). Chambers (1989)
argues, “Historically the fashions for ideologies, packages, and programmes in rural
development have changed” (p. 1). Thus, it is necessary to backup and see the different
ways development has been conceptualized at different times. To begin with, the
meaning of “development” is as varied as that of “community participation.” I agree with
Thomas (2000) that development “embodies competing political aims and social values
and contrasting theories of social change.” In most cases, it is defined in terms of national

average economic indicators of progress. Some other critical scholars see development as
a “hoax” introduced to allow the industrialized North, especially the USA, “to continue
its dominance of the rest of the world in order to maintain its own high standards of
living” (Thomas, 2000, p. 19). While I am cognizant of the fact that there are situations
where the term “development” can be used not as an ideograph, I argue that its
ideographic use serves the purposes of legitimizing Western ideology and policies of
international relations. For example, Bernstein (2000) argues was used
during the colonial period to justify the intervention of European colonial powers in
Africa and Asia. He explains that developmental notions were wrapped in discourses of a
“civilizing mission,” which ranged from the creation of law and order to the building of
infrastructure and communications, to the introduction of Western education and
medicine, and the gradual formation of new values. According to Bernstein (2000),
“colonialism in sub-Saharan Africa was thus marked by a more intensive and
comprehensive series of interventions to promote development” (p. 268). Therefore, it is
important to note that there was a clear connection between and
colonialism.
Chambers (1997) defines in a simple way as “good change.” I
know for sure that Ethiopia needs this kind of development, for there are many things that
should change for the better. I also understand even this definition may not be simple
enough. “Good” in whose eyes? “What are the objects of change and how are they to be
altered?” are some possible questions to ask. But it is not my intention to go into further
detail here. In what follows, I highlight the dominant ideologies within the discourses of

development in the last 60 years. Later, I explain how certain “ideographs” are given the
task of carrying these ideologies.
Dominant Ideologies in “the Era of International Development”
President Harry Truman’s inaugural address on January 20, 1949 marks the
beginning of what is considered the era of international development (Thomas, 2000). He
reiterated that the nation faced “grave uncertainty” during a period that would be
“eventful, perhaps decisive, for us and for the world.” This period was marked by
tensions between democracy and what he called the “false philosophy” of communism, “a
regime with contrary aims and a totally different concept of life.” “In the coming years,”
the President made clear, “our program for peace and freedom will emphasize four major
courses of action.” These are:
First, we will continue to give unfaltering support to the United Nations and
related agencies, and we will continue to search for ways to strengthen their
authority and increase their effectiveness. We believe that the United Nations will
be strengthened by the new nations which are being formed in lands now
advancing toward self-government under democratic principles. Second, we will
continue our programs for world economic recovery… Third, we will strengthen
freedom-loving nations against the dangers of aggression…Fourth, we must
embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances
and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of
underdeveloped areas.
Truman’s speech came as a response to the Cold War situation where the two
superpowers, the USA and the USSR, “vied with each other for influence over the newly

independent, ex-colonial countries of the South” (Thomas, 2000, p. 6). Mansuri and Rao
(2013) argue, “In the context of the Cold War, community development was seen as a
means of protecting newly independent states against the dual threats of external military
aggression and internal subversion. Perhaps the most important motive was to provide a
democratic alternative to Communism” (p. 25).
and were the major exigencies that called forth a
type of development rhetoric that would be appealing to people in poor nations.
became a dominant commitment in development to counter
the devil terms of , , and .
For example, President Truman appeared to have and in
mind when he argued that his administration would not “impose” itself on other nations
but aimed to “help the free peoples of the world, through their own efforts, to produce
more food, more clothing, and more materials for housing.” He underlined, “The old
imperialism—exploitation for foreign profit—has no place in our plans. What we
envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair-dealing.”
The Bretton Woods institutions became key players in international development
in the postwar period. They injected large-scale resources into developing countries with
the hope that the economies of the recipient countries would grow. Despite their
contributions, Hewitt (2000) argues, financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF
were “disproportionately favourable to the continued dominant position in the world
economy of … countries” (Hewitt, 2000, p. 291). Some analysts hold Bretton Woods
accountable for discourses that overemphasized the value of technical knowledge as a

solution for world poverty (Easterly, 2013). The central argument of Easterly’s book,
Tyranny of Experts, is that:
The conventional approach to economic development, to making poor countries
rich, is based on a technocratic illusion: the belief that poverty is a purely
technical problem amenable to such technical solutions as fertilizers, antibiotics,
or nutritional supplements. We see this in the [World] Bank’s action’s in
Mubende; we will see the same belief prevalent amongst others who combat
global poverty such as the Gates Foundation, the United Nations, the US and UK
aid agencies. (p. 6)
Easterly (2013) starts his volume by telling a story of how a British company “financed
and promoted” by the World Bank was going to grown forests (in Mubende District,
Uganda). According to Easterly, the company’s work on the ground caused forest fires
that burned down the barns and homes of a neighborhood and killed one eight-year-old
child. The story is an extreme example of how technocratic approaches to development
can be wrong and how consulting local communities could have been better.
The 1950s and 1960s were characterized by the need for rapid industrialization of
developing countries (Hewitt, 2000). National governments were believed to be the major
development actors (Chambers, 1989). Owing to the economic boom in the developed
world, agencies like the World Bank were able to support large-scale development
initiatives in the underdeveloped world. The underlying assumption was that Western-
style modernity, achieved through economic growth, was the way forward (Hewitt,
2000). On the other hand, the need for reconstruction in Africa, following the
disintegration of imperial regimes, put development on top of the agenda for nations

freed from the yoke of colonialism. According to Chambers (1989), there were
widespread efforts to implement donor-supported rural development projects in sub-
Saharan Africa. It was during this period that the West (mainly the USA) funded large-
scale agricultural development units in different parts of Ethiopia. Ambitious plans
during this period seemed to have paid off. Technological and skills transfers, in addition
to financing, resulted in economic growth in many developing countries, albeit in varying
degrees. The growth period did not last long. “By the 1970s, the idea of international
development both as an ideal and as an economic fact had become severely undermined”
(Hewitt, 2000, p. 296). According to Hewitt (2000), the 1970s saw a shift from economic
“growth-at-all costs” towards “an emphasis on employment and redistribution with
growth” (p. 296). Developing countries borrowed large sums of money from international
financial institutions, mainly the World Bank and the IMF. Debt-led “growth” resulted in
a debt crisis. Structural adjustment programs required by Bretton Woods were considered
the way out of the crisis. However, there seemed to be no easy fix. Debt crises and
inflation continued. Many of the poorest countries of the world in the sub-Saharan region
got poorer in the 1980s (Hewitt, 2000).
One of the leading thinkers about rural development and participation, Robert
Chambers (1989) calls the 1980s “the decade of efficiency” (p. 4). Since the 1980s, neo-
liberalism, with its emphasis on market mechanisms, became the dominant way of
thinking about development (Hewitt, 2000; Thomas, 2000). Major international actors
defined indicators of poverty reduction (development) in economic terms. For example,
the World Bank introduced a single poverty line for the whole world. The Bank
considered an income of less than US$1 per day as extreme poverty. The other widely

used indicator of development is GDP, which is a technical term for the “total final
output of goods and services produced by an economy” (the World Bank qtd. in Thomas,
2000, p. 11). Such national average measures of development are problematic as they can
obscure the poverty situation of individuals and minority groups. Even more important
for the current study is that the rhetoric of gross national economic figures could be used
to silence grassroots voices. Emphasis on measurable economic progress is a noteworthy
point because it provides the basis for my arguments about the inherent tension between
the rhetoric of efficiency and the rhetoric of participation.
Development aid, which had been flowing to developing nations since the 1960s,
started to decline in the 1980s (Hewitt, 2000). Chambers (1989) explains why both the
“more government” policies of the 1970s and “less government” approaches of the 1980s
failed to bring solutions to the problems of development:
Both ideologies and both sets of prescriptions, embody a planner’s core, center-
outwards, top-down view of rural development. They start with economies not
people; with the macro not the micro; with the view from the office not the view
from the field; and in consequence their prescriptions tend to be uniform, standard
and from universal application. (p. 6).
The post-World War II interventionist rhetoric of development, which was started
by President Truman’s speech, continues to the present day with slight changes in focus
by different agents of international development. Thomas (2000) argues that capitalistic
interventionism sees the need for international development to “ameliorate the distorted
faults of progress” (p. 28).

In the 1990s the neoliberal agenda began to diminish (Thomas, 2000). The
promotion of “democracy” and “good governance” was the major shift in the
development paradigm. Thomas argues, “Markets are still seen as the most efficient
mechanism for economic growth, whilst states play an ‘enabling role’ and NGOs provide
welfare services to those that are not reached by markets” (p. 305). During this period,
Thomas contends, liberal democracy presented itself as the only basis for development
since socialism lost the battle.
Although the capitalistic rhetoric of development has been dominant, there are
those who reject capitalism and look for alternative modes of invention (Thomas, 2000).
According to Thomas, such attempts include looking for some form of socialism, which
does not depend on the state. Such options go by different names like “another
development,” “alternative development,” or “people-centered development.” The
people-centered versions of development are guided by three principles: justice,
sustainability and inclusiveness (Thomas, 2000). Thomas contends “participation” was
later recognized as another important political condition for authentic development.
In the preceding section, we have seen how “development” has been at the center
of North-South relationships for a half century. While remains the
ideograph the West has used to legitimize various types of interventions in developing
countries, the ideology underlying efforts has changed. That
has remained at the center of all the models and ideologies that appeared
to be dominant at various times shows how important this ideograph has been. Whereas
provides a context and reason for discourses of , “participatory” is often used to indicate a certain type of approach to

. Notwithstanding the ideological tensions surrounding discourses of
at any moment and the changes over time, I argue, in the
subsequent parts of the chapter, that the organizations under study have often used the
rhetoric of community to mask their practices of “manufacturing consent”
and to legitimate their driven mode of doing development. I shall also argue
that NGOs employ such rhetoric to impress international donors and get funding for their
programs. I will start my argument by charting the rhetoric of
the World Bank and the United Nations. I do this not only because diachronic analysis is
an aspect of ideographic criticism, but also because “ideologies emerge from historical
events and therefore are evident only in historical view” (Cloud, 1998, p. 382). Once the
global rhetorical situation is established, it becomes easier to see how discourses diffuse
from more powerful organizations to implementing agencies.
Global Agencies’ Rhetoric of in
Mansuri and Rao (2013) credit Bretton Woods and the USAID as institutions
which helped drive the first wave of interest in participatory development in the 1950s
and 1960s by funding and promoting community-based development. Eade (2004)
explained the role of these international agencies in inventing the ideographs around
which the notions of participatory development are wrapped:
Remarkably, it has taken only 60 years or so for Developmentspeak, a peculiar
dialect of English, to become the lingua franca of the International Development
Industry. Its pundits inhabit all the major institutions of global governance, the
World Bank—as benefits its role as the world’s Knowledge Bank—taking the lead
in shaping the lexicon: burying outmoded jargon, authorizing new terminology

and permissible slippage, and indeed generating a constant supply of must-use
terms and catchphrases. Its speakers are found in all corners of the world, giving
local inflections to the core concepts, thus making the adoption of
Developmentspeak an essential qualification for entry into the Industry. The
extraordinary thing about Developmentspeak is that it is simultaneously
descriptive and normative, concrete and yet aspirational, intuitive and clunkily
pedestrian, capable of expressing and most deeply held convictions or of being
simply “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” This very elasticity makes it
almost the ideal post-modern medium even as it embodies a modernising agenda.
(pp. viii-ix)
Eade’s description of “Developmentspeak” is actually about ideographs. He understands
ideographs (“Developmentspeak”) as ordinary language terms, representing a normative
goal. He also explains how they are culture-bound and how membership into a
community requires individuals to be conditioned to these terms. Eade nicely explains
that these “must use,” “simultaneously descriptive and normative” “terms and
catchphrases” are found in “all corners of the world” with “local inflections to the core
concepts.” While they can be “pedestrian,” these terms are “capable of expressing and
most deeply held convictions or of being simply full of sound and fury signifying
nothing” (pp. viii-ix). This description of “Developmentspeak” is, by and large,
consistent with Michael McGee’s portrayal of ideographs.
In the 1980s, participation became a United Nations’ theme and, as a
consequence, a UN inter-agency Panel on People’s participation was set up in 1982
(Chambers, 2005). According to Hickey and Mohan (2004), other proponents of

participation from the 1980s to the present day include the World Bank, NGOs,
development professionals and Robert Chambers. The focus in the 1980s was on
participation in projects rather than in broader political communities (Hickey & Mohan,
2004). With the emergence of the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) in the early
1990s, donors showed renewed interest in actively funding participatory approaches, with
the aim of ensuring minimal levels of investment while protecting the most vulnerable
community groups. Mansuri and Rao (2013) contend, “over the last decade, the World
Bank has allocated almost $85 billion to local participatory development. Other
development agencies—bilateral donors and regional development banks—have
probably spent at least as much” (p. 15). The policy interest and the processes of
participation, Mansuri and Rao argue, have been “driven more by ideology and optimism
than by systematic analysis, either theoretical or empirical” (p. 15).
The NGO Working Group at the World Bank advocated for bottom-up
approaches to development (Long, 2001). As part of its effort, Long explains, an
international conference on popular participation was jointly organized by NGOs and the
UN Economic Commission for Africa in 1990 in Arusha, Tanzania. According to Long,
the purpose of the conference was “to call attention to the essential truth that people must
be integrally involved in their own development” (p. 1). The conference produced the
African Charter on Popular Participation, which, in the words of Long, “stands as perhaps
the best expression of popular participation” (p. 1). The World Bank, other UN agencies
and major donors, such as USAID, the British Department for International Development
(DFID), German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and the Swedish International

Development Cooperation Authority (SIDA) among others, launched participatory
development initiatives.
In what follows, I take a close look at selected United Nations and the World
Bank rhetorical texts to identify the ideographs around which these organizations
organize their discourses of community participation. I do this in order to investigate the
meanings of these ideographs and the purposes they serve.
Rhetoric of the United Nations
The United Nations was founded in 1945 by 51 countries committed to
“maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among
nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.” Today
the organization has 193 member states. Although best known for peacekeeping, peace
building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, there are many other ways the
UN and its System (specialized agencies, funds and programs) strive to “make the world
a better place.” Sustainable development, promotion of democracy, and human rights
protection are among the many areas in which the organization is engaged.
Since the United Nation was founded in the aftermath of World War II, its
mission focused on global peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Thus, we do not see
foundational documents of the UN like the United Nations Charter and the Universal
Declaration of the Human Rights making direct mention of “community participation.”
The word “democracy” is not even mentioned in the UN Charter. The UN is not explicit
about the notion of democracy and participation because it is a membership organization
of all kinds of nations, including dictatorial regimes (Rich & Newman, 2004). This,
however, does not mean that the UN has no interest in democracy and democratic values

such as participation. Rich and Newman (2004) argue that the UN was aware of the role
democracy plays in achieving peace, security, respect for human rights and prosperity in
the world. To support their argument, they borrowed the idea of democratic peace
theory, which claims “democracies do not engage in armed conflict with other
democracies.” They also made a point in support of the relationship between democracy
and development. They cited Nobel laureate Amartya Sen who claims a country becomes
“fit [for economic and social development] through democracy.”
I agree with Rich and Newman (2006) that the UN has promoted democratic
values because these values serve its interests. UN documents have some articles that are
indirectly connected to democratic participation. For example, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights contains articles that are, one way or another, related to the right of
community members to participate in development and other issues that matter to them.
These articles include the right to freedom of thought (Art. 18), the right to freedom of
opinion and expression (Art. 19), the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association (Art. 20) and the right to participate in the cultural life of the community (Art.
27).
Midgley (2011) traces the origins of the discourse of community participation to
the United Nations’ concept of “popular participation.” According to Medgley, Western
democratic theory, populism and the community movement of the 1950s and 1960s had
considerable influence on the discourse of community development. Medgely observes
that the United Nations and the American government had key roles in the refinement of
community development ideas. When it comes to community participation, though,
Medgely (2011) gives the biggest credit to the United Nations. While he is aware that

several historical antecedents provide a source of inspiration for the current discourse of
community participation, he argues “its emergence as a coherent approach must be seen
as a direct consequence of the United Nations’ popular participation programme” (p.
177). Then, through the influence of international agencies, many countries and NGOs
took up the idea (Medgely, 2011).
Beyond key UN documents, we see “community participation” used in
publications and speeches posted on the official website of the United Nations
(www.un.org). For example, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, noted in 2009, “We
have learned the importance of building local capacity, focusing on the needs of women
and the poorest, community participation, and accountability and transparency.”
Similarly, in a Declaration by participants at The World Summit of Sustainable
Development (2002, South Africa), they affirmed, “We recognize that sustainable
development requires a long-term perspective and broad-based participation in policy
formulation, decision-making and implementation at all levels.”
A focused search of the phrase “community participation” in the texts posted on
the official website of the UN generated 959 mentions. The UN used the phrase less
frequently than the World Bank, because this website only archives files from the UN
Secretariat Office. When a search is carried out on texts from individual grassroots
focused agencies of the UN family, the frequency with which “community participation”
occurs in texts is higher (e.g., FAO = 6,770 & UNICEF = 1053).
One of the most important UN documents on participation is the African Charter
of Popular Participation in Development. The charter was an outcome of a five-day
international conference organized under the auspices of the United Nations in Arusha,

Tanzania in February 1990. Over 500 people from the UN system, African states, NGOs,
the international community and grassroots organizations and associations attended the
conference. The aim of the conference, among others, was: a) to recognize the role of
people’s participation in Africa’s recovery and development efforts, and b) identify
obstacles to people’s participation in development and define appropriate approaches to
the promotion of popular participation in policy formulation, planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of development programs. In what follows, I take this
important document as a representative case and study its use of .
Establishing the rationale for participation, the Charter (1990) describes the
economic, human, legal, political and social crisis “engulfing Africa” and affirms:
Nations cannot be built without the popular support and full participation of the
people, nor can the economic crisis be resolved and the human and economic
conditions improved without the full and effective contribution, creativity and
popular enthusiasm of the vast majority of the people. After all, it is to the people
that the very benefits of development should and must accrue. (p.4)
Thus, the widespread economic, humanitarian and social crisis in Africa was used as a
justification for adopting participatory approaches to development. On the one hand, the
rhetoric emphasizes that people should be involved as they are the end users of the
benefits of development works. On the other hand, the rhetoric of popular participation
appears to justify the “full and effective contribution” of citizens and their “creativity.”
The question here is whether many African nations provide the deliberative space and
freedom to their citizens to be creative. In many cases, others decide how and to what end
people should participate.

According to the Charter, popular participation is, in essence, “the empowerment
of the people to effectively involve themselves in creating the structures and in designing
policies and programmes that serve the interests of all as well as to effectively contribute
to the development process and share equitably in its benefits.” Like many other
discourses, the UN conference participants clearly point to citizen’s rights and potential
to take part in all aspects of development, including “charting their development
policies”:
We, therefore, have no doubt that at the heart of Africa’s development objectives
must lie the ultimate and overriding goal of human-centered development that
ensures the overall well-being of the people through sustained improvement in
their living standards and the full and effective participation of the people in
charting their development policies, programmes and processes and contributing
to their realization. (p.5)
In the rhetoric, warrants the involvement of citizens in all
stages of development. The Charter also emphasizes the central role of the people and
their popular organizations in the realization of popular participation. The Charter
demands that people should take the initiative, in addition to getting fully involved in
projects others initiate. We shall see in subsequent chapters if the reality on the ground
supports these rhetorical claims.
The conference participants realized the need to “emphasize self-reliance on the
one hand” and, on the other hand, “to empower the people to determine the direction and
content of development, and to effectively contribute to the enhancement of production
and productivity that are required.” In this construction, people are not in a position to

control the how and what of development. By implication, there are others who have
made such important decisions. Once communities get empowered, then they will be able
to push back and have their voices heard.
Participants at the international conference clearly indicated their position on the
conceptual distinction between “participation as a means” and “participation as an end”:
In our sincere view, popular participation is both a means and an end. As an
instrument of development, popular participation provides the driving force for
collective commitment for the determination of people-based development
processes and willingness by the people to undertake sacrifices and expend their
social energies for its execution. As an end in itself, popular participation is the
fundamental right of the people to fully and effectively participate in the
determination of the decisions which affect their lives at all levels and at all times.
I have rarely seen participation described as “the fundamental right of the
people.” Not only does this Charter try to strike a good balance between the means and
end functions but also is cautious about how it describes the means part of the equation.
For example, the Charter indicates that the participation of the people should aim at
“collective commitment for people-based development process.” “Willingness of the
people,” according to the Charter, should be the basis of participation.
The Charter demands that African governments “yield space to the people” since
popular participation is “dependent on the nature of the state.” This is a very important
point we do not see emphasized in discourses originating from the West. Participants
pointed out freedom of expression should be guaranteed. The Charter also demands that
the international community “examine its own record on popular participation, and

hereafter … support indigenous efforts which promote the emergence of a democratic
environment and facilitate the people’s effective participation and empowerment in the
political life of their countries.” The conference participants seem to have realized the
negative role that the international community, including NGO, has had in imposing itself
on communities and not always supporting indigenous efforts.
Rhetoric of the World Bank
The World Bank is one of the independent specialized agencies of the United
Nations. Some people refer to the Bank as “the financial wing of the UN.” The mission of
the World Bank is “sustainable poverty reduction” around the world. According to the
Bank, “poverty encompasses lack of opportunities (including capabilities), lack of voice
and representation, and vulnerability to shocks.” The fact that poverty is defined in terms
of lack of voice justifies as a better approach to development.
The Bank argues that indigenous communities have been “on the losing end of
development”:
In many cases, their resources have been exploited for the benefit of other groups
in society and, in many countries, they are the poorest of the poor. Often they
experience political and economic discrimination and are perceived as backward
or primitive. Even when development policies and programs have been designed
specifically to improve the welfare of indigenous peoples, the approach has
usually been paternalistic, seeking their cultural assimilation and ignoring the
strengths of indigenous institutions and knowledge (including environmental
knowledge). This, in turn, can contribute to worsening poverty, social
marginalization and ethnic resistance.

This discourse, and others like it, criticize the past to provide a rationale for advancing
the anti-colonial counter discourse of “community participation.” It is in the interest of
the Bank to support community participation initiatives because “paternalistic”
approaches “contribute to worsening poverty.”
The Bank considers itself in a “unique partnership,” offering technical and
developmental assistance to developing countries in addition to providing “low-interest
loans, interest-free credits, and grants.” Since its inception in 1944, reconstruction has
been an important part of the Bank’s work. “However, at today’s World Bank, poverty
reduction through an inclusive and sustainable globalization remains the overarching goal
of our work” (Website, the World Bank Group).
In the mid-1980s, the Bank realized that poverty would not be reduced by
focusing on “economic, financial and technical” aspects while paying “little attention” to
the social aspects of development. Thus, they embarked on addressing social issues
including enhancing community participation. Bamberger (1986) summarized the reasons
that led the Bank to take community participation seriously:
Several factors have contributed to an increasing recognition of the need to social
aspects of development. First is the accumulating evidence about the effects that
beneficiary participation in project design and management have on the efficiency
of implementation, cost recovery, and project sustainability. Second is the limited
capacity of national and local government agencies to manage effectively the
increasing number of development projects and programs. Third is the belief that
development planners have a moral obligation to “listen to the people,” both to
understand their needs and to assess how their lives are actually being affected by

donor-sponsored projects and policies. A final factor is the concern over gender
issues. Women are not to make their full contribution or receive their full share of
benefits unless projects are designed to take into account the special needs and
potentials of women. (p. vii)
The World Bank not only recognized the values of community participation itself
but also used its financial leverage to push the agenda of participation. In a policy of the
Bank, “consultations and participation” was listed as one of the conditions for
development funding eligibility:
In carrying out dialogue with borrowing countries, the Bank advises them to
consult with and engage the participation of key stakeholders in the country in the
process of formulating the country’s development strategies. For a development
policy operation, the country draws on this process of strategy formulation to
determine, in the context of its constitutional and legislative framework, the form
and extent of consultations and participation in preparing, implementing, and
monitoring and evaluating the operation. Bank staff describes in the Program
Document the country’s arrangements for consultations and participation relevant
to the operation, and the outcomes of the participatory process adopted in
formulating the country’s development strategy. (Development Policy of Lending,
the World Bank)
is a commonplace phrase in World Bank texts. A
focused search of the phrase in the official website of the World Bank
(http://www.worldbank.org) is indicative of the wide public usage of the ideograph. My
first search under the “publications” section of the website resulted in 12, 505 mentions

in several texts (as of May 2, 2014) using the phrase “community participation.” The
chart in appedix H in the appendix summarize the incidence of “community
participation” in the texts posted on the website. I reduced the number of artifacts to look
closely at the 86 with “community participation” in their title. I did this with the
assumption that such texts are more focused on “community participation” and hence
would provide a better venue to see the use of the phrase as an ideograph. In my
investigation of the ideograph I paid more attention to the
bank’s key global policies, position papers and studies rather than texts about specific
countries or projects. Almost all the publications I chose to scrutinize were labeled
“Public Disclosure Authorized,” which suggests that these discourses have been
circulated among a wide range of audiences.
The subsequent discussion is based on a close reading of the ideograph, which appeared in Bank discourses from the 1980s to the
present period. In addition to World Bank’s publications, I read hundreds of pages of
commentaries, articles and books focusing on the bank’s policies of social development
and the use of over the years. I organized my analysis of the
discourses under the major objectives of community participation identified by the World
Bank (Paul, 1987). These are empowerment, building beneficiary capacity, increasing
project effectiveness, improving project efficiency, and project cost sharing. Paul (1987)
posits, “of the five objectives of CP, cost sharing, project efficiency and project
effectiveness were dominant in the projects reviewed” (p. v).
Promotion of democratic rights. Even if it was not explicitly stated as one of the
objectives, an overriding theme in discourses is the

promotion of democracy. For example, the title of a January 2009 article by the bank,
“FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE: Community Participation, Voice and
Representation,” mimics the popular motto of democracy. The Bank assumed that
citizens in developing countries had little or no chance to hold discussions on issues that
matter to them. That is why the Bank required countries to liberalize as a condition for
loan and grant qualification. In its “Indigenous Peoples” policy, the World Bank states
that the development process should fully respect “the dignity, human rights, economies,
and cultures of Indigenous Peoples.” The Bank also makes it clear that it provides
financial assistance for initiatives designed to make the development process more
inclusive of Indigenous Peoples by incorporating their perspectives in the design of
development programs and poverty reduction strategies. The Bank’s rhetoric seems to
favor partners that provide communities with opportunities for free and informed
consultation.
At least at the surface level, is used ideographically to warrant the
inclusion of the voices of “the community” in the decision-making process. The World
Bank supports participatory development because “the poorest of the poor” often
experience political and economic discrimination and are “perceived as backward or
primitive.” The World Bank also uses discourses of to
further argue that communities should be allowed to guide the development process to
match their own needs and priorities. In its widely circulated newsletter, “Social
Development Notes,” the Bank (1995) explains:
The characteristics of indigenous groups make participatory approaches especially
critical to safeguarding their interests in the development process. Such

approaches, recognizing the right of indigenous peoples to participate actively in
planning their own futures, are supported by major donors and international
organizations, including the World Bank, but have proved very difficult to
implement. (Note number 8, p. 1)
The World Bank and other donors use the of indigenous people as one
reason for supporting participatory approaches. In no text did I see the World Bank argue
in opposition to the democratic ideals of representation and all-inclusiveness. It is not
surprising that an organization largely financed by democratic nations embraces a core
concept of liberal democracy—citizen participation. A related concept commonly found
in Bank narratives is “open development.” Bottom-up approaches to development and
feedback from grassroots stakeholders, according to the Bank, are important ways of
ensuring transparency and accountability.
In this case, the Bank’s discourses of justify
deliberative decision-making as an ideal in which it is worth investing. Participation is
held as a goal rather than a means to an end. For example, the Bank’s Vice-President for
sustainable development argued in 1995, “the essence of sustainable development is
helping people make their own decision and take responsibility for their own welfare.”
Beneficiary and . According to the World
Bank (2002), “Empowerment means increasing poor people’s access and control over
resources and decisions by changing the nature of the relationship between poor people
and state and non-state actors” (p.10). In most cases the word “empowerment” was used
with . Searching for the phrase “empowering the poor” in the official website
of the World Bank, I found the phrase was used 149 times between 1996 and 2013. If I

were to consider the variants of empowering like “empower” and “empowerment,” the
frequency could have gone higher.
Paul (1987) argues, “While references to effectiveness, efficiency and cost-
sharing as objectives of CP are made in Bank’s policy documents, empowerment and
capacity building have received much less attention” (p. v). “Empowerment and capacity
building emerged as relatively less important objectives in the Bank projects” (Paul,
1987, p. vi).
The ideographs , , and form
a cluster. They all concern improving the situation of the poor. When the poor participate
in development decision-making, it is assumed they are empowered and their capacity to
negotiate increases. On the flip side, empowered citizens whose communicative and
technical capacities have been developed are believed to participate better and get their
voices heard. Even though not explicitly stated, the underlying assumption is that
democratization takes place when empowered citizens participate in the process.
, and development. These ideographs appear
to cluster around the concepts of investment and cost-benefit analysis. In the World Bank
Groups’ discourses this set of ideographs justify engaging communities in development
albeit in the form of making labor and financial contributions. The Bank considers
projects “effective” when there is efficient use of limited resources. World Bank manual
writer, Gopal (1995) notes:
Experience has shown that the active and informed participation of disadvantaged
communities in the design and implementation of social sector projects can
contribute significantly to the sustainability of development activities through

increased community ownership, strengthening of the legitimacy of community
institutions, and to the more effective use of grassroots facilities and services
(emphasis is mine). (p. 1)
Similarly, the World Bank argues participatory approaches to development
“increase the likelihood that communities will be at the forefront” of interventions
“ultimately leading to more effective and efficient” operations. Citizen participation in
“decision-making” is, for the Bank, a way of producing “more efficient and effective
delivery of services.” This might be right, but the question is to what extent citizens
participate in the decision-making process. My field study results will help describe the
practices on the ground.
In conclusion, the World Bank has embraced a participatory approach to
development and urged its partners to do likewise. Former president of the Bank, James
Wolfensohn (1996), notes, “I personally believe in the relevance of participatory
approaches and partnerships in development and am committed to making them a way of
doing business in the Bank.” However, the way participation was understood within the
Bank has changed over time. A senior official with the Bank observes, “While initially,
community participation was limited to provision of voluntary labor by communities, or
participation of non-governmental organizations in capacity building exercises, it now
actively involves communities in the design and implementation of projects.”
NGOs’ Rhetoric of
As partners with both the World Bank and the UN, NGOs link the global with the
local. While NGOs represent the private, civil society sector, the UN and the World Bank
are inter-state agencies. Thus, NGOs are not directly accountable to these inter-state

agencies. Yet, strategic interests strongly connect them. For example, the World Bank has
been collaborating with NGOs since the early 1980s. NGOs are important to the Bank
“because of the skills and expertise they bring to emergency relief and development
activities and because they foster participatory development processes” (The World
Bank, 1999, p. vii). Feeney (1998) argues, “Funding NGOs enables donors to achieve
two aims simultaneously: to minimise the direct role of governments in the economy, and
to provide services in a cost-effective way” (p. 25). According to Feeney (1998), NGOs
receive about 10 percent of total bilateral aid.
In addition, the Bank explains that it “encourages” borrowers and its staff
members to consult with and involve NGOs as appropriate in Bank-supported activities,
including all stages of the project cycle. Even though the Bank is primarily a lender,
grants are an integral part of its development work and services. “The Bank’s main
objectives in extending grants are to encourage innovation, catalyze partnerships, and
broaden the scope of Bank services”(1999, p. 1).
The relationship between NGOs and the UN has gone through various stages. The
formal recognition of the relationship was expressed in the concept of “consultative
status” in Article 71 of the UN Charter. Explaining why NGOs are important to the UN,
Smith (2006) points out:
NGOs often work hard at building and maintaining their reputation, since it is the
perceived quality of their information that can provide them with access and
influence in the political bodies of intergovernmental organizations. In addition
many NGOs have an operational or service function that brings them into close

contact with both the people they are trying to help and the field staff of the UN
and other IGOs [International NGOs]. (p. 116)
Smith (2006) also observes, “it is clear that there are many reasons that NGOs would
desire to be active participants in the global dance of UN politics” (p. 116). Two of these
reasons could be: 1) getting the chance to partake in “global dance” and influence global
resolutions passed by the UN and, 2) getting resources necessary to implement
humanitarian and development programs in the field. The UN-NGO partnerships are
based on UN agencies and programs providing resources to NGOs, which in turn
contribute to the success (or failure) of the work undertaken by the UN. Since the UN
gets to choose which NGOs to partner with, NGOs must compete for UN assistance.
They do this by demonstrating their expertise and documenting their relationships they
have with grassroots communities (Smith, 2006).
NGOs not only adopted participatory development rhetoric early on but also were
instrumental in promoting the participation of poor and marginalized people in project
decision-making (Log, 2001; Mansuri and Rao, 2013). In the words of Midgley (2011),
“Non-governmental organizations have also been major promoters of community
participation ideals” (p. 179). In what follows, I examine selected texts from both Oxfam
and World Vision to learn about their community participation rhetoric.
Oxfam’s Rhetoric
Like many other global actors, Oxfam is fond of the phrase “community
participation.” A focused search in the official website of Oxfam GB resulted in 188 texts
with the phrase “community participation” in them (there could be multiple mention of
the phrase in each text). In my investigation of the ideograph ,

I paid the most attention to Oxfam’s mission, values, “constitution,” policy documents,
and thirteen years of annual reports (2001-2013). Almost all the publications are
available to the public.
The subsequent analysis of the ideograph is based on
Oxfam discourses in the last three decades. In addition to the texts produced by Oxfam, I
looked at some photos and graphics posted on the website of the organization. I did that
with the view of shedding light on the visual rhetoric of Oxfam. I identify the major
ideographs that justify the discourses of participatory development. Then I put these
ideographs into clusters and discuss the relationships among them.
Oxfam describes itself as a global movement of people working towards a world
without poverty. The mantra of the organization is “lifting lives for good.” In their
mission statement, they state, “We respond fast in emergencies, and stay to help people
rebuild their lives. We work on long-term projects with communities determined to shape
a better future for themselves. And we campaign for genuine, lasting change.” Oxfam’s
vision is “a just world without poverty.” According to a statement on their website, the
organization envisions “a world in which people can influence decisions which affect
their lives, enjoy their rights, and assume their responsibilities as full citizens of a world
in which all human beings are valued and treated equally.” Thus, the idea of participation
features in a short, usually carefully thought about and worded vision statement, which is
the best expression, one can find, about the intent of an organization. The organization
clearly indicates that the purpose of community participation is “influencing decisions
which affect their lives.” This is a very important indicator against which practices of
“participatory approaches” can be measured.

In an Oxfam publication, Feeney (1998) defines participation as “an opportunity
for citizens and public and private organizations to express their opinions on general
policy goals or to have their priorities and needs integrated into decisions made about
specific projects and programmes” (p. 10). She explains that participation allows
particularly poor communities a chance to “discuss development plans” with
representatives of government and donor agencies. Thus, in Oxfam’s rhetoric
participation is mostly about deliberating over plans and making decisions. It is about
communities bringing concerns and alternative ideas and negotiating plans.
From the beginning, Oxfam acknowledges that people in poverty have the desire
and capacity to change their situation. Oxfam’s vision statement implies that there are
circumstances in which people cannot influence the decisions that affect their lives. This
exigency calls forth the rhetoric of community participation.
Whether we are running life-saving emergency responses, life-changing
development projects or campaigning at the grassroots to tackle poverty, Oxfam’s
work is always rooted in a vision of a world where women and men are valued
and treated equally, able to influence the decisions that affect their lives and meet
their responsibilities as full citizens. Oxfam’s 6 goals put local communities and
the voices of poor people at the centre of change – our best hope for ending the
injustice of poverty. (Oxfam GB website-Goals and Values)
Oxfam claims to help people realize their potentials by way of empowering them
and making sure they “feel they can make change happen.” Truly believing in the
capacity of the people to contribute and to change their own lives is a huge step in
engaging communities. As one of their values, Oxfam staff proclaims, “We’re a world

expert in providing water and sanitation, and emergency response…We know a thing or
two about long-term development and tackling the causes of
doubt was mainly conceived as modern education. Graduate caps provided
the visual on Oxfam’s website to explain expertise (see visual and description below).

We will later see the tensions that arise between and .
Another noteworthy point here is that Oxfam understands poverty as resulting from
“injustice.” This framing has significant implications for participatory approaches to
development. It implies that dealing with unjust power relationships is a necessary
condition, for the provision of resources alone may not result in a better life for the poor.
While Oxfam recognizes the structural nature of the causes of poverty, it also ap
point its finger toward governments, donors and other agencies of development.
and as
Oxfam underscores that participation is the right of communities, not a privilege.
For Oxfam, “participation i
essential prerequisite for recognizing and safeguarding fundamental rights.” Oxfam says,
“We are helping people to claim rights for themselves, the right to be heard.”
Communities are supposed to was mainly conceived as modern education. Graduate caps provided
the visual on Oxfam’s website to explain expertise (see visual and description below).

We will later see the tensions that arise between and .
Another noteworthy point here is that Oxfam understands poverty as resulting from
“injustice.” This framing has significant implications for participatory approaches to
elopment. It implies that dealing with unjust power relationships is a necessary
condition, for the provision of resources alone may not result in a better life for the poor.
While Oxfam recognizes the structural nature of the causes of poverty, it also ap
point its finger toward governments, donors and other agencies of development.
and as
Oxfam underscores that participation is the right of communities, not a privilege.
For Oxfam, “participation is not simply a way of making aid more effective, but an
essential prerequisite for recognizing and safeguarding fundamental rights.” Oxfam says,
“We are helping people to claim rights for themselves, the right to be heard.”
Communities are supposed to in development because it is their .
Oxfam justifies the need to actively involve people in development decision
We’re a world expert in providing
water and sanitation, and emergency
response. In 2010/11 alone, generous
public donations helped us reach 6.5
million people affected by conflict and
92

expert in providing water and sanitation, and emergency response…We know a thing or
.” There is no
doubt was mainly conceived as modern education. Graduate caps provided
the visual on Oxfam’s website to explain expertise (see visual and description below).
We will later see the tensions that arise between and .
Another noteworthy point here is that Oxfam understands poverty as resulting from
“injustice.” This framing has significant implications for participatory approaches to
elopment. It implies that dealing with unjust power relationships is a necessary
condition, for the provision of resources alone may not result in a better life for the poor.
While Oxfam recognizes the structural nature of the causes of poverty, it also appears to
point its finger toward governments, donors and other agencies of development.
Oxfam underscores that participation is the right of communities, not a privilege.
s not simply a way of making aid more effective, but an
essential prerequisite for recognizing and safeguarding fundamental rights.” Oxfam says,
“We are helping people to claim rights for themselves, the right to be heard.”
rticipate> in development because it is their .
Oxfam justifies the need to actively involve people in development decision-making on

the grounds of rights and the power of communities to make change happen. Oxfam says,
“With the power of the people against poverty, we can solve this poverty puzzle.” Ruling
out the voices of communities is “unjust” and costly for the effort to produce better
results on the ground.

Caption: We can end poverty and injustice by mobilizing the power of people
against poverty.
We see a close relationship between these two ideographs- and
. justifies community . In this case, participation is
considered more of an end rather than a mean of achieving development. As a pro-poor,
advocacy NGO, Oxfam puts “rights” at the center of its rhetoric in favor of community
participation. Their practice aside, we see some element of “participation as a means”
rhetoric in their use of , and to justify
(also see the visual rhetoric below).

Caption: Oxfam works with partners on long
and injustice

A visual used to explain Oxfam’s value of “collaboration”
Another ideograph that f
According to the way Oxfam frames its arguments, communities claim their
when they are empowered. Thus, active engagement of communities in deliberations
requires citizens equipped with the
Caption: Oxfam works with partners on long-term programs to eradicate poverty
and injustice
A visual used to explain Oxfam’s value of “collaboration”
Another ideograph that falls in the same cluster with is .
According to the way Oxfam frames its arguments, communities claim their
when they are empowered. Thus, active engagement of communities in deliberations
requires citizens equipped with the necessary skills of public deliberation. By
94

term programs to eradicate poverty

A visual used to explain Oxfam’s value of “collaboration”
alls in the same cluster with is .
According to the way Oxfam frames its arguments, communities claim their
when they are empowered. Thus, active engagement of communities in deliberations
necessary skills of public deliberation. By

implication, it is not possible to simply recognize participation as the right of
communities and not do something that helps communities fight for their rights. One
aspect of is providing communities with information. Oxfam recognizes
that “effective participation requires access to information—held by public authorities or
donors, or even by private companies.” Oxfam is cognizant of the fact that unequal
access to information leads to unequal power. In addition to information, community
members need the skills necessary to negotiate and experience getting their views across.
To this end, Oxfam aims “to build local skills and experience, so communities can be in
control of their own lives.”
World Vision’s Rhetoric of
In the case of World Vision, too, I purposely focused on texts that describe
organizational identity, core principles, policies and philosophies of development. In
addition, I reviewed 13 years of widely circulated, annual reports of the organization
(2000-2012) and hundreds of pages of reports and commentaries about the organization
and its approaches to development. I found relevant discourses by running a specialized
search of “community participation.” A search of the World Vision International website
revealed 108 documents in which the phrase “community participation” appears at least
once.
World Vision identifies itself as a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated
to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full
potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice. Explaining their first core value,
they write, “We are Christian.” Jesus is “central” to their “individual and corporate life.”

His identification with the poor, the afflicted, the oppressed, the marginalized; in
His special concern for children; in His respect for the dignity bestowed by God
on women equally with men; in His challenge to unjust attitudes and systems; in
His call to share resources with each other; in His love for all people without
discrimination or conditions; in His offer of new life through faith in Him. From
Him we derive our holistic understanding of the gospel of the Kingdom of God,
which forms the basis of our response to human need. We hear His call to
servanthood and see the example of His life. We commit ourselves to a servant
spirit permeating the organization. We know this means facing honestly our own
pride, sin, and failure. We bear witness to the redemption offered only through
faith in Jesus Christ. The staff we engage are equipped by belief and practice to
bear this witness. We will maintain our identity as Christian while being sensitive
to the diverse contexts in which we express that identity.
World Vision staff members strongly identify themselves with Jesus and vow to follow
His example. They use a rhetorical strategy of building their development philosophy and
approaches around Jesus’s teachings and deeds. The founder of World Vision, evangelist
Bob Pierce, is credited with saying, “Let my heart be broken with the things that break
the heart of God.” When I was interviewing some World Vision personnel, I observed
that some of them were tapping into this practice of identifying with the supernatural to
sustain their rhetoric of “doing good, be it in community development, [it] is natural for
us as we try to emulate the examples of the perfect God.”
It is the staff’s “holistic understanding” of the gospel “which forms the basis of”
their “response to human need.” No matter what it takes, they are determined to commit

themselves to “a servant spirit” and respond to Jesus’s call. Thus, they are “committed to
the poor,” not just as a matter of principle but because it is their spiritual calling. Given
the high moral ground spirituality has for many audiences, such framing of the response
to the needs of the poor as a “spiritual duty” may be a persuasive approach (Henkel &
Stirrat, 2001). This kind of organizational rhetoric presents participatory development as
part of the rhetors’ identity. When a person says, “I am this and this is part of who I am,”
then there is limited room for others to examine the intent of the speaker. Thus, the
rhetoric of identification with the just might obscure the gap between the belief and
practice of development agents.
justifies World Vision’s commitment to and working
“alongside the poor towards fullness of life.” Unlike Oxfam and other secular
organizations, for World Vision “fullness of life” includes “the discovery of eternal
hope in Jesus Christ.” Thus, the staff finds it important to witness their Christian faith to
communities. In the process of transformative deliberations, they rhetorically position
themselves as facilitators of engagements between “the poor and the affluent”:
We seek to facilitate an engagement between the poor and the affluent that opens
both to transformation. We respect the poor as active participants, not passive
recipients, in this relationship. They are people from whom others may learn and
receive, as well as give. The need for transformation is common to all. Together
we share a quest for justice, peace, reconciliation, and healing in a broken world.
(World Vision International Website–Values)
World Vision stresses the need for the poor to be “active participants, not passive
recipients.” The organization’s rhetoric also maintains that the outcome of participatory

development has to be . For example, one of the key commitments of
the organization is the “Transformational Development Policy.” In this policy, World
Vision affirms that the first indicator of transformation is “community participation.”
Quoting its mission statement, the organization claims, “community participation is central
to World Vision’s pursuit of ‘transformational development that is community based and
sustainable, focused especially on the needs of children’” (emphasis in the original text).
World Vision’s use of the adjective “transformational” qualifies what kind of
development is significant. A former World Vision official, now turned professor, Myers
(2011) explains how Christian “transformational development” differs from traditional
“development.” According to Myers (2011), transformational development reflects,
“seeking positive change in the whole of human life materially, socially, psychologically
and spiritually.” Myers stays away from the traditional term “development” because it is”
heavily loaded with past meaning, not all of which is positive.” He explains that when
most people think of development, “they think of material change or social change in the
material world.” He also notes, “development is a term that many understand as a
synonym for Westernization or modernization” (p. 3).
For World Vision, “Community participation means that men, women, boys and
girls perceive that they actively participate in all aspects of their development, with
particular focus on programme planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.”
World Vision (1998) observes:
The 1990s was the decade when participatory development became mainstream,
with an explosion of participatory methods across countries and sectors, and the
adoption of policies on participation at all levels by governments, donors and
agencies, both on rural development projects and beyond to the larger issues of

policy and governance. The growing importance of participation, as well as it’s
complexity and the challenges involved are acknowledged by many development
agencies, both secular and Christian…World Vision’s experiences of community
participation parallel this, through the 1990s move to Area Development
Programmes (ADPs). It’s inclusion as one of WV’s core Transformational
Development Indicators will reinforce this. (p. 1).
Earlier, we have seen how World Vision constructed good development principles as
Christian virtues, germane to the staff’s identity. But this passage seems to suggest that
World Vision adopted the participatory approaches to development following the rhetoric
of the 1990s.
Expertise vs. Participation Tensions: A Clash of Rationalities
rhetoric obscures the tension between participation
and expertise. On the surface, NGO rhetors recognize that citizens have the right and
capacity to fully participate in development undertakings. There are some indications that
the rhetoric of economic development, especially at the grassroots level, inherently
privileges expertise. Modern economic development is grounded in scientific rationality,
which is in tension with communicative rationality. Experts usually make decisions on
strategic directions and citizens are called on to provide window dressing. This
modernization rhetoric was in harmony with the vested interest of elites, who were
gaining more power over local communities and their way of knowing (Curtis, 2001 in
N&W, p. 115). aimed at diffusing innovations from where it existed
(the West) to where it was scarce (under developed nations). In participatory approaches
the manner in which participants reach a decision becomes more important than the

100

decision itself. Some people argue experts are threatened when communities are
empowered and participate fully. Experts are said to lose power as “the technocratic
approach to development” gets challenged (Easterly, 2013). According to Easterly,
technocrats (experts) have a “misconception” of proposing “technical solutions” to every
problem the poor have. He observes, “the technocratic illusion is that poverty results from
a shortage of expertise, whereas poverty is really about a shortage of rights” (p.7). When
citizens truly participate, they not only bring alternative solutions to the table but also use
their rights to reject the propositions of the experts.
The tensions between “expertise” and “community participation” were revealed in
the 1960s and 1970s because of the much despised top-down “diffusion of innovations.”
What the ideograph enables development agents to do is
reverse the top-down approaches to a bottom-up approach to development. Theoretically,
the flip side is supposed to have implications for the power of the experts and of course,
of citizens. The discourses of community participation promise that differences will be
bracketed and there will be open negotiations. Experts are promising to put their expertise
on par with communities’ indigenous knowledge. Open deliberation is supposed to be a
mechanism to reach at the winning ideas. Whether that is the case in reality is what I
explore in the field data analysis.
The tension between expertise and participation exemplifies the clash between
communicative and scientific rationality. There is an inherent tension among strategic,
utilitarian and participatory approaches to development. While the former presupposes
one objective reality and sees communication as just a means of expressing beliefs and
intentions, the latter (participatory) approach presupposes multiple realities and favors

101

intersubjective, open communication that leads participants to reach tentative
conclusions. Discourses of community participation have obscured these important
philosophical tensions. While the rhetoric of NGOs emphasize some variant of
communicative action, the practices (as we shall see in chapters five and six) lean toward
achieving strategic goals via utilitarian approaches.
was the ideograph that offered NGOs and other
development agencies a return to the ideal way of doing development by critiquing top-
down approaches. While repudiating the traditional top-down approaches to development
to justify their current redeeming modes of doing development, organizations tend to
adopt the rhetorical strategy of claiming, “we are the champions of current approaches.”
We do not see them indicate as to who should take responsibilities for the approaches that
did not work in the past. The rhetoric blames the methods rather than those organizations
that promoted “wrong” approaches. In a way, lack of was
used to obscure the complexity and multi-faceted nature of why past development efforts
did not succeed.
In offering a new style of development, NGOs’
rhetoric construct messages that convey there are no issues of power currently in their
relationship with the communities with which they work. I argue that the ideograph offers
a venue of discursive struggle between the colonial, top-down development approaches in
the past and the promised decolonized, democratic space of deliberation. While the
rhetoric succeeded in vilifying the past and making promised of fresh start, they
understate the question of what is happening in regards to engaging communities in
policy discussions.

102

Project , , and are
offered as the possible outcomes of . For example, World
Vision observed, “a culture of participation empowers families and whole communities to
influence and shape their situation, through coalition and networks at local, national,
regional and global levels” (p. 119). Changes with political couture and democracy rarely
get mentioned as long term impacts of in the discourses of
Oxfam and The World Bank. The United Nations and World Vision made almost no
mention of these terms although they might have implied these concepts while using
ideographs like and .
In the preceding discussions, three themes stand out: (a) the diachronic
development of the ideograph , (b) the various synchronic
clusters around the ideograph, and (c) the continuity/discontinuity among the
international discourses on (UN, World Bank, and NGOs). I
summarize these three themes in diagram 1 below.

103

Diagram 1: Diachronic and synchronic relationships between ideographs
clustering around
NB: Each unit (oval or rounded rectangle shape) represents a cluster. Ideographs
in a cluster are strongly related to one another. Arrows represent ideographic routes.
While one directional arrow shows the direction of change in the ideographic cluster used

104

to justify/allow actions, two directional arrows show tensions between ideographic
clusters. Bigger arrows show major tensions (the central idea of my arguments). Normal
(unbroken) lines show continuity of relationship while broken lines represent
discontinuity.
In what follows, I will shed light on the rhetoric of the
Ethiopian government. I observe the discourses of the Ethiopian government as providing
context to my main line of analysis of the global-NGO-community interactions. I decided
to look at the Ethiopian governments’ discourses because the interactions between the
global and the local do not happen in a vacuum. Although this study chooses not to
follow the global-national-grassroots route and give greater emphasis to the national
discourses, the analysis below makes the study more sophisticated.
Ethiopian Government’s Rhetoric of
One purpose of my research is to see whether the participatory development
discourses of selected global agencies influence the language and practices of NGOs and
grassroots communities. Thus far, I have not paid particular attention to an important
stakeholder in development—the governments of donor and recipient nations.
Nevertheless, Ethiopian political discourse has not been immune from the influence of
the rhetoric of Western agencies. The Ethiopian media are a
good source of data on government policy. I sampled news stories from the database of
the Ethiopian News Agency (ENA), the official news agency of the government for more
than 70 years. ENA is the nation’s most important producer of news stories. All
government-owned media outlets receive news dispatches from ENA. There has never
been an independent-television station in the country. Except for two entertainment-

105

focused FM stations, all other wider-reach, radio stations are either government or party-
owned. Given such a media landscape, ENA’s stories closely reflect government
positions.
I examined stories written in English in the years 2006-2008. These are the years
during which Ethiopian political discourses changed significantly their emphasis from
“democratic state” to “developmental state.” According to postelection reports of
international observers (e.g. The European Union and The Carter Center), the country’s
national elections were relatively free but they concluded with controversial6 results that
allowed the ruling party to stay in power. Since this time, officials have rhetorically
redefined Ethiopia as an economic development-oriented country, which was following
the examples of China and other eastern Asian Tiger economies. Official rhetoric
pursued a strategy of downplaying and grounding the root causes of
national problems in . , which “endanger[ed] the very survival of
the nation,” warranted ignoring and focusing on .
For example, a government official is quoted as arguing that
is needed “to reduce poverty”:

6
In its Ethiopia’s historic May 2005 observation final report, The Carter Center (2009)
concludes, “the 2005 electoral process did not fulfill Ethiopia’s obligations to ensure the
exercise of political rights and freedoms necessary for genuinely democratic elections”
(p. 3). According to the Center, a peaceful election day was followed by “flawed
counting and tabulation processes in many areas; repeated incidents of serious
postelection violence, including the killing of many dozens of people during electoral
protests.” The European Commission was more critical of the election outcomes that
resulted in violent protests and killings. A commission mandated by the Ethiopian
Parliament to investigate the situation reported that 193 citizens, including seven police
officers were killed.

106

Deputy administrator of the Woreda Zenebe Mandefiro on his part said the
community in the Woreda is celebrating the millennium and May 28 victory day
because they have benefited from the political, social and development
achievements. He said the woreda administration is implementing development
and good governance programs with active community participation with a view
to reduce poverty. (ENA, May 8, 2008)
Thus, the 2006-2008 news stories provide a window through which to study the
ideological tensions surrounding the rhetoric of , , and
.
I chose a maximum of three development stories from an average of 14 national
stories produced each day. I looked at the headline and sometimes the lead of each story
and decided if the news story was relatively more development-focused than others. For
example, if there were six development-stories out of 13 total stories in a day, I took the
most relevant three (e.g., the story got selected if it had the word “participation” in it). If
there was no relevant story in a given day, I decided not to take any from that particular
day. Using this procedure, I collected 1295 single-spaced pages of text (a total of 2855
news stories). In addition, I examined civics textbooks commissioned for Ethiopian high
school students. In what follows, I present my observations and arguments supported by
exemplar quotations.
Versus
As opposed to the popular phrase “community participation” in Western
discourses, is the preferred equivalent in ENA-generated passages.
While a word search showed only one instance of , it

107

generated 59 instances of . In my view, “community” is a relatively
new terminology in Ethiopian discourses. Traditionally, communities were addressed
using names originating from specific linguistic groups (e.g., the Oromo, Amhara,
Gurage, etc.), clans (e.g., Borena, Karayu, Bacho), and locality (e.g., Gojame, Arusi,
Sidamo, Wolaita, etc.). A search for the word “community” alone generated a 125
instances. “Community” apparently is a popular Western word replacing traditional
Ethiopian vocabulary. For example, the following passage from a ninth-grade civics and
ethical education textbook (Mehari et. al., 2011) provides a good example of how
Western names are replacing traditional terms:
People live together in villages, towns and cities. They form different associations
like Iddir, Mahiber, or kebele to make life better. Members who belong to such
associations form a community. Such associations survive because of the work of
the members of the community. This is called community participation.
Community participation is focused on actions that have an economic, political,
and social impact. You belong to your school as a student. You also belong to the
kebele as a resident. You might also belong to a football team as a player, and to a
HIV/AIDS club as a member. These are different communities requiring different
activities. Your membership of these communities must not be only for
membership’s sake. You need to be active in your class to learn and achieve a lot.
Unless you are active in your football team your kebele too, you have to do a lot
with you. In your kebele too, you have to do a lot with others for the good of all
residents. This is also called active community participation. When you
participate actively in the community, you and other members of the community

108

will all benefit. When everybody takes part, healthy relations exist among
members of the community. Community projects are for the common good (my
emphasis). (p. 141)
The Ethiopian civics textbooks for grades 9-12 contain a chapter entitled, “Active
Community Participation.” In an informal conversation, one of the textbook writers
told me the project was influenced by Western discourses. The values that needed to be
covered were selected with the help of Western experts who provided support to the
Ministry of Education. The British trained the textbook writers. They followed
examples from Western citizenship education textbooks. Apart from similarity with
Western naming (community participation), the content of the textbooks help to instill
democratic values. The chapters cover political participation, which means “being
prepared to vote, lobby, persuade, or protest,” social participation (“acting to help
development”), and civic participation (“actions outside of politics, military, etc.”). The
textbooks also include chapters on effective leadership and grassroots organizing.
Other than in this case of Western-expertise inspired civics textbooks, the
ideograph is more popular than in
Ethiopia. I argue the choice of words may be explained by the differences in political
histories of countries/regions. Western rhetoric’s privileging of the local (e.g., the small
town myth, the myth of community in American politics) could be the reason to choose
“community” in the USA. In Ethiopia, the ideograph was
extensively used in the mid 1970s to mobilize protests against Emperor Haile Selassie’s
feudal regime. The incoming military Dergue continued to use and
because they helped promote socialist ideology. These ideographs were also

109

used to take actions, including massacre of . It is important to note
ideographs can be (ab)used to warrant even the harshest actions. The Degue killed sixty
high-ranking officials of the toppled Haile Selasie regime and would tell Ethiopians (in
the news), “The public, revolutionary Dergue has today took measure on 60 anti-
revolutionary forces.” Such mass killings happened several times, all in the name of
protecting the interest and the . The word was so
popular that many parents named their children “Abiot” (“revolution” in the Ethiopian
national language) because government discourse persuaded them to believe it was
something good, whatever it was supposed to mean.
Versus Forced Contributions
Variations in naming aside, the discourses of in the Ethiopian
public sphere emphasized mobilizing the wider public to make material, labor and
financial contributions for . A close look at the following excerpts from
ENA news stories provides a sense of framing in Ethiopian
national discourses:
1) Various development works carried out in Gimbichu Woreda, East Shoa Zone
of Oromia State, at a cost of over 1.2 million Birr7 were inaugurated on Saturday.
The projects, which were carried out through public participation include the
sinking of four clean water wells, construction of five latrines and irrigation
canals. (September 22, 2008)
2) Roads covering 680 kms and 1,143 additional classrooms were constructed
along with development of several springs. The public has contributed about 11.7

7 Birr is the name of the Ethiopian currency. One US dollar is approximately 20 Ethiopian
Birr.

110

million Birr worth of labor and material support for the construction of the
facilities. It has also contributed more than 1.5 million Birr cash support. The
head said that the office has plans to execute 26 million Birr worth of
development projects through public participation in the current Ethiopian fiscal
year. (January 26, 2007)
3) 50 alternative basic education centers established at a cost of 1.3 million Birr
secured from UNICEF and public participation were providing service. (June 4,
2006)
4) Over 2,400-km gravel roads in Gedeo Zone of the South Ethiopia Peoples’
State were constructed and maintained through public participation during the
past budget year, the zonal rural road office said. (August 12, 2006\
5) Some 17 new primary schools were built at a cost of 7.5 million birr in Bale
Zone of Oromia State during the past academic year the zonal education
department said. Department plan and program head, Yale Beje told Ethiopian
News Agency on Monday 4.4 million Birr have been contributed from the
community, while the balance was provided by the government. (August 4, 2006)
These stories have two common themes: citizen “participation” and “making
contributions” (labor, money or material). In most cases these contributions are not made
voluntarily, though the news stories chose not to say anything about the mechanisms of
pulling together, albeit ironic, large amount of resources from poor communities. For
example, ENA reported on September 13, 2008, “one million people in 24 woredas of
Illuababor Zone, Oromia State have carried out various development projects valued at
7.6 million Birr during the past four months. It is not clear, at least from the story, how

111

the zone, in which I was born, managed to make about 1% of the country’s citizens
“participate”. That a public official “plans to execute 26 million Birr worth development
projects through public participation in the current Ethiopian fiscal year” (case 2 above)
is indicative of the involuntary nature of “participation.” If “participation” is supposed to
be voluntary, it is difficult to specify exactly how much public will occur.
In the name of , I remember every adult male in my neighborhood
was required to take turns “safeguard[ing] the revolution.” It involved people getting
bundled up with warm clothes, carrying canes/sticks and walking around in groups (with
one gun-carrying militia man) one night a month to protect their assigned neighborhoods
from people with suspicious behaviors. It was the time when several underground groups
were organizing resistance against the military regime. In the name of female and youth , citizens were forced to provide free services like growing and manually
processing food for the military at war with Somalia. Whoever fails to ends
up paying fines or gets imprisoned. The ideographs , , and
were used to warrant all sorts of political action, including the denial of
individual rights.
Versus
The word “democracy” rarely appears in the national discourses of Ethiopia in the
three years following the landmark 2005 national elections. A word search generated 10
uses of “democracy” (versus 4468 instances of “development”) in a 1295-page dataset.
Two mentions of “democracy” resulted from a newspaper name (Abiotawi democracy).
In the other eight cases, “democracy” was used as a concept, which appeared in the same

112

sentence as “development.” Every single time, “development” appeared before
“democracy” as we see in the following excerpts:
1) After inaugurating the facilities, Chief of the zonal administration Agegnehu
Teshager said the social facilities constructed by the government and public
budget are a result of good governance, development and democracy (my
emphasis). (June 11, 2007).
2) Farmers should further enhance their involvement in the efforts being made to
speed up development and ensure peace and democracy, said Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development [Mr. Addisu
Legesse] (my emphasis). (November 16, 2008)
The coupling of the words “development” and “democracy” is not a coincidence. The
order points to the current ideological position and policy priorities of the government.
The ideographs and are in ideological tension in
Ethiopia. I am positive that was much more frequent in the discourses prior
and during the 2005 national elections. Why would become so rare in
public sphere? Has prioritizing been used to deny ? If that
is the case, it is something different from discourses of the West—”democracy and
development are friends.” Researchers from the field of political science, development
studies and economics have done extensive studies about the relationship between regime
type and economic development (Chan, 2002; Easterly, 2013; Przeworski et. al., 1992). I
believe rhetorical criticism can further this line of inquiry by studying how the
ideological battles might be built around ideographs.

113

In conclusion, the discourses of the development agencies I examined all maintain
that communities should participate in development mainly by way of contributing ideas,
negotiating plans and making joint decisions. Above all, the one promise the ideograph
offers to the poor is the chance to make their voices heard.
While the organizations under study allow communities to attend meetings, they mainly
use the rhetoric to require communities to make a
contribution of financial worth. The organizations want to organize these meetings
possibly to mobilize support or impress donors and also to achieve and

The rhetoric of is too compelling to refute. Critics of
the rhetoric usually point out the discrepancies between the rhetoric and practices on the
ground. We will see the practice side of the equation in chapters five and six. In chapter
seven, I will put the rhetoric and practices in conversation with one another.

114

CHAPTER 5: TENSIONS IN GRASSROOTS PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS:
LESSONS FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS
In this chapter, I address the research question number two– how is participatory
development enacted in actual community interactions with Oxfam and World Vision
staff? My goal is to provide thick descriptions of the communicative aspects of
grassroots deliberations I observed. Following descriptions I will take a critical turn and
reflect on how public deliberations on development are enacted during NGO-community
meetings. I explore whether the relationships between development actors and situations
on the ground help develop or constrain participation. More specifically, I examine the
representation and significance of the voices of citizens and experts who participated in
the meetings I attended. I looked at the strategies employed to integrate expertise into
participation. The participants’ roles, the power they have and the means of persuasion
available to them will guide the overall analysis of the field observation data.
Participation in development has four critical elements as outlined by the United
Nations Development Program (1997): participation in decision-making, participation in
implementation, participation in benefit sharing and participation in evaluation. Each of
these levels of participation entails a different type of relationship between development
agency workers and the communities they serve. Thus, in this analysis, I focus on
participation in decision-making. This is the stage where community representatives are
supposed to engage in deliberations to negotiate their interests with the NGO workers.
Context is very important in understanding communication. Thus, before I get to data
presentation and analysis, I will establish the context of the communication act by

115

describing the two NGOs’ roles at the grassroots level and the socio economic and
cultural features of the communities the NGOs work with.
NGOs’ Engagement in the Study Sites and the Communities
In chapter one, I have introduced the ethos of Oxfam and World Vision. Their
history in Ethiopia and their development interest areas were also discussed. In what
follows, I will present these NGO’s programs in the study area. Following that, I will
introduce the communities in my study sites.
Oxfam GB Engagement in the Study Area
Most of the people (87%) in Limmu Seqqa woreda are small scale farmers that
grow “Arabica” coffee. Most of the organic coffee from this area ends up in the US,
Germany, Belgium, Japan, France and the UK. According to the 1999 national census,
the total population of the woreda is 151,880 out of which about 49 per cent are females.
The Limmu Seqqa district is located 457 km (283 miles) south west of Addis
Ababa. The district covers 177,064.36 ha (1777 km2) of land, which is subdivided into 38
kebeles (peasant associations). The altitude of the woreda ranges from 800 to 2200
metres above sea level. The temperature ranges from 12.1 to 24.7 0C (54-77 0F).
The major development problems in the area, according to the Oxfam field office,
include shortage of schools, health institutions, potable water supply, widespread malaria,
lack of veterinary services to deal with livestock diseases, high cost of modern
agricultural inputs, and inadequate infrastructural facilities.
World Vision Engagement in the Study Area
World Vision launched an area development program (ADP) in Adama woreda in
1991. Since then it has been undertaking various emergency relief, rehabilitation and

116

development programs. In the last few years, Adama ADP has adopted an integrated and
holistic program approach geared toward achieving eight program goals: 1) increasing
agricultural production for the targeted households, 2) increasing access to food for
targeted households, 3) improving health status of the households and community, 4)
reducing spread of HIV/AIDS and increase care for victims, 5) improving education
status of the community, 6) improving community capacity, 7) enhancing child
development, and 8) improving program management.
Adama ADP has a program office and residence quarters/camp for about 20 core
staff. The fenced, well protected, compound is situated about a mile outside of a small
Rift Valley town-Awash Melkassa, which is located 120 km (75 miles) southeast of the
capital, Addis Ababa. Topographically, the Woreda varies from flat lands to sloping
(hilly) escarpments. Its altitude ranges from 1300 to 1800 meters above sea level. The
area temperatures range from 24 to 320C (75-900F). The total population of Adama
Woreda is 110,560; 86% of whom are subsistence farmers who grow maize, teff8, haricot
bean, wheat, sorghum and some fruits and vegetables. They also raise livestock such as
cattle, sheep/goat, pack animals and camels. The majority of the population (95%) is
ethnic Oromo. According to information from World Vision’s Adam field office, Coptic
orthodox Christians make up 55% of the woreda’s population, while the balance is
Muslim (30%), Protestant (2%), and “others” (13%). Those categorized by World Vision
as “others” could possibly be followers of traditional Oromo rituals.

8 Teff is a cereal grain native to Northeastern Africa and Southwestern Arabia. It has been
used in Ethiopia in particular to make the staple food for many people-injera

117

The Research Communities
A great majority of the population that dwells in both my research areas are ethnic
Oromos. Afaan Oromo is the working language. I chose my study communities to be
Oromos, first because they are one of the marginalized ethnic groups in Ethiopia. They
never assumed real central political power. The hegemonic group, the Amharas, use
pejorative stereotypes to address the Oromos and portray them as barbaric pagans
(Levine, 1974). Such labeling made it possible for others (especially the Amharas) to
expand to the Oromo areas to “civilize” them. This is parallel to Western discourses used
by Europeans to demonize Africans and pave the way for colonialism (Hassen, 1990).
For example, Hassen cites the first sentence from an important work of Abba Bahray-
“History of the Galla,” which reads, “I have begun to write history of the Galla in order
to make known the number of their tribes, their readiness to kill people, and the brutality
of their manner” (p .2).9 If NGOs commitment to empowering people and giving them
voice is to be studied, a community like the Oromos will provide a good case. Simmons
(2007) likewise asserts, “Power relations are more readily apparent from the perspective
of the less powerful because they are the first to be denied access to decision making” (p.
15). Second, the Oromos have traditional and modern modes of cooperation (Ta’a, 1996).
It is important to see how far development NGOs take such traditional institutions into
account in their effort to bring about social change among the Oromos. Third, I am an
Oromo, born in Oromia region. This is the community I know fairly well. My knowledge
of Afaan Oromo helps me understand everything the community members will tell me.

9 Galla is a derogatory word officially used by others until the beginning of the 1990s to
mean the Oromos. In actuality the word means barbarian.

118

The Oromo are the largest Ethnic group in Ethiopia constituting about 40 per cent
of the total population of the country (Baxter, Hultin & Triulzi, 1996; Legesse, 2000;
Markakis, 2011). They are also among the most numerous in Africa (Baxter et al 1996;
Marsakis, 2011). They are a distinct people with a unique and autonomous culture
(Megersas, 1996) and their own language—Afaan Oromo. By and large, different Oromo
groups share similar core cultural values and modes of thought, although there are slight
variations between the pastoralists and the subsistence farmers (Baxter et al., 1996;
Legesse, 1973; Megerssa, 1996).
“Oromo groups share common cultural and historical roots in the form of
kinship, political philosophy, worldview and ritual” (Jalata, 2001, p. 59). They have a
biologically and social constructed kinship system which is subdivided into clan, lineage
and extended family systems (Jalata, 2001). According to Jalata (2001), the organizing
principles of Oromo worldview and culture include: 1) belief in the existence of a
monotheistic Supreme Being, Waqaa, and 2) accepting the existence of two sets of rule
(the law of God and the law of man) where the rule of God is immutable and laws of man
can be changed through democratic deliberative processes. It is very important to note
here that the Oromo people have had a traditional “political organization, the forum for
debate and the democratic means of reaching consensus on all decisions affecting the
common good,” which should be obtained “without force or coercion, without excluding
the interest of any group, within the Oromo society and outside it, in the broader context
of the national and international arena” (Jalata, 2001, p. 62).

119

Another vital point, from the point of view of this research, discussed by Jalata
(2001) is the Oromo concept of social development known as finna (sustainable
development, heritage): Drawing on the Oromia Support Group, Jalata writes:
As in any society, social changes occur in Oromo society by combining the
cumulative historical experiences with the contemporary condition. Hence finna
“represents the legacy of the past which each generation inherits from its
forefathers and which it transforms; it is the fertile patrimony held in trust by the
present generation which it will enrich and bequeath to future generations. . . . It
describes a movement emanating from inside, a developing of the inner potential
of society based on the cultural roots it has already laid down.” (p. 62)
The concept and practices of participation on issues that matter are not foreign to
the Oromo. Many scholars agree the Gada system is the overarching organizing principle
of the Oromo political culture. Jalata (2001) contends, “Gada has been the foundation of
Oromo civilization” (p. 62). Legesse (1973) explains:
The Gada system is a system of classes (luba) that succeed each other every eight
years in assuming military, economic, political, and ritual responsibilities. Each
gada class remains in power during a specific term (gada) which begins and ends
with a formal power transfer ceremony. (p. 8)
Legesse (2000) sees Gada as “a multi-headed system of government, based on
division of labor and a pattern of mutual regulation between different institutions” (p
.xxiii). Some scholars assert Gada is an indigenous African political system that is
different from contemporary Western democracy. Others advance the thesis that Oromo

120

institutions like Gada have no political significance or practical functions (Hassen, 1990;
Legesse, 2000).
Oromo traditions survive and remain intact owing to some underground practices of the
gada (Gemechu, 1996; Jalata, 2001). One of the challenges to the very basis of the
Oromo culture comes from Christian Abyssinianism, which borrows much from Judeo-
Christian traditions (Gemechu, 1996). Gemechu notes the Oromo belief in Waaqa is
portrayed as “a form of devil worship” and hence laying the basis for the prejudice
against Oromo and Oromo belief (p. 97). It will be very important to see how the cultural
situations of these communities factor into the participatory development NGOs claim to
foster.
Presentation and Analysis of Field Observation Data
Data comes from my 65 notebook sheets (9″ X 7″) of handwritten field notes and
from actual tape-recorded interactions that resulted in 17 pages of typed, single-spaced
text. I gathered field data for a period of ten weeks. I attended nine meetings lasting from
37 minutes to three and a half hours. I would have loved to attend more meetings.
However, such deliberative moments do not come frequently. It took World Vision staffs
a while to make these meetings happen mainly for two reasons: 1) The staff members
seemed to have found it difficult to recollect their focus and get back to business, and 2)
It was not easy to organize meetings as the months are October and November are the
major grain harvest seasons in most part of Ethiopia. Out of the total of nine
meetings I observed at the research sites, I detail two of them; one from each of Oxfam
and World Vision’s working localities. I purposely chose these two meetings for analysis
because they demonstrate many of the characteristics typical of deliberations between

121

NGO workers and communities in the research sites. At the Oxfam site, the rest two
meetings were adult literacy programs. They were not appropriate for my analysis
because they adopted more of the traditional top-down approach. There were no
decisions to be made through discussions. In the case of World Vision, all the five
meetings involved varied degrees of deliberation. But the one I chose for analysis was the
longest of the meetings I observed. It was also among the two meetings that were
attended by a larger and heterogeneous group of participants. In regards to the way the
deliberations proceeded, the meeting I chose to analyze was not much different from the
rest four. It is not my intention to compare organizations or localities in terms of
engaging communities in public deliberations. As my study is rooted in
critical/interpretive research traditions, I resist the temptation to make any kind of
generalizations.
In the course of describing these two communicative events, I mention unique
features witnessed, if any, in other meetings to supplement the description of the two
meetings and give a complete account of how grassroots deliberations between
development stakeholders were portrayed. Before I get to the data presentation and
analysis, I would like to describe the core ideas in Habermas’ theory of communicative
action and make an argument about why I think it is a very good lens to see participatory
deliberations over issues of social development.
Theory of Communicative Action and the Ideal Speech Situation
It is believed public deliberations would be most beneficial when they are all
inclusive, open and honest. Deliberations often become undemocratic when power
imbalances among individual participants go unchecked. I wondered how deliberations

122

would go in an ideal world where there are no issues of power. Jürgen Habermas has an
answer for this question. To shed some light on theoretical foundations of deliberations
and what deliberations would look like in an ideal situation would be helpful in better
understanding the nature of the meetings I am going to describe. Thus, in what follows I
will highlight Habermas’ “theory of communicative action” and a related concept of “the
ideal speech situation.”
Habermas’ “theory of communicative action” describes how consensus created
through intersubjective group communication could be regarded as an alternative to “the
sujectivistic and individualistic premises of modern philosophy and social theory”
(McCarthy, 1984, p. vi). Habermas (1984), communicative action is “those linguistically
mediated interactions in which all participants pursue illocutionary aims, and only
illocutionary aims, with their mediating acts of communication” (p. 295). Habermas’
theory of communicative rationality presupposes there is no a priori set of established
best solutions to social problems. So what is considered “rational” would be the
understanding and consensus reached through dialogue. Whereas social action and not
communication is the ultimate goal of deliberations, Habermas argues the procedures
people follow to arrive at conclusions set apart different approaches rather than the
conclusions themselves. Habermas explains:
[T]he communicative model of action does not equate action with
communication. Language is a means of communication which serves mutual
understanding, whereas actors, in coming to an understanding with one another so
as to coordinate their actions, pursue their particular aims. In this respect the
teleological structure is fundamental to all concepts of action. Concepts of social

123

action are distinguished by how they specify this coordination among the goal-
directed actions of different participants-as the interlacing of egocentric
calculations of utility, as a socially integrating consensus about norms and values
instilled through cultural tradition and socialization, or as reaching understanding
in the sense of a cooperative process of interpretations… The interpretive
accomplishments on which cooperative processes are based represent the
mechanism for coordinating action; communicative action is not exhausted by the
act of reaching understanding in an interpretive manner. (p. 101)
What Habermas (1984) calls “teleological structure” or instrumental model of action is
the dominant model which presupposes that “the actor attains an end or brings about the
occurrence of a desired state by choosing means that have promise of being successful in
the given situation and applying them in a suitable manner” (p. 85). In contrast to the
teleological model, the concept of communicative action refers to “the interaction of at
least two subjects capable of speech and action who establish interpersonal relations.”
The central concept, according to Habermas, is that the actors “seek to reach an
understanding about the action situation and their plans of action in order to coordinate
their actions by way of agreement.” He emphasizes the crucial role language has in
negotiating the agreements. The communicatively achieved agreements, according to
Habermas, are always subject to criticism and change. Thus, the procedural rationality
does not promise interlocutors would arrive at correct conclusions all the time. The good
thing is that there is a room to continuously test the conclusions if there is a valid reason
to doubt their authenticity (Eriksen & Weigard, 2003). Habermas (1984) explains:

124

Unlike instrumental reason, communicative reason cannot be subsumed without
resistance under a blind self-preservation. It refers neither to a subject that
preserves itself in relating to objects via representation and action, nor to a self-
maintaining system that demarcates itself from an environment, but to a
symbolically structured lifeworld that is constituted in the interpretive
accomplishments of its members and only reproduced through communication.
Thus communicative reason does not simply encounter ready-made subjects and
systems; rather, it takes part in structuring what is to be preserved. (p. 398).
The important conditions are that “all parties involved in deliberations have the same
fundamental right to have their voices heard” (Eriksen & Weigard, 2003, p. 7). There
would be no interference of powerful institutions such as the state. The assumption is that
citizens will be free to go whatever direction open dialogs and their thinking could take
them. For a speech community to reach consensus, Habermas argues, there should not be
regard for social status or rank. This suggests that it is important to bracket power
differentials and assume discussions were taking place amongst equals.
Drawing from Habermas, Hanson (1985) describes “an ideal of democratic
discourse in which power plays no role” (p. 37). In such an ideal situation, Hanson
argues, “reason rather than power carries the day” (p. 37). He argues this conception of
“democratic discourse” is not something arbitrary because it is grounded in a
communication ethics that is in some sense objective (p. 38). Hanson explains the nature
of the ideal speech situation and the underlying notion of communication ethics as
follows:

125

Ideal speech situations are characterized by a mutual orientation toward reaching
an understanding on the part of participants who enjoy equal standing in the
discussion and who have equal chances for selecting and employing various
arguments on their own behalf (McCarthy 1973). These formal conditions of
discourse are connected with the conditions for an ideal form of life in which
coercion is absent, and all communication is governed by a communicative ethics
oriented toward the force of the better argument. (p. 38).
Similarly, Gareis (2010) identified four conditions Habermas described as most important
for ideal discourses: 1) No one capable of making a contribution is excluded, 2)
participants have equal voice and equal chances to make arguments, 3) participants are
honest with each other and with themselves, and 4) there is no coercion built into the
process.
Although Habermas originally developed the theory of communicative action by
conducting the rise and fall of the bourgeois public sphere, it lends a good lens for the
study of public deliberations in contemporary societies. That Habermas’ notion is
centered at developing citizen power and challenging the elites who usually make
important decisions in society makes the theory of communicative action very relevant
for the analysis of participatory act in any society. Habermas is critical of modern days
where he believes decisions are made at higher levels by political and economic system
players. But Habermas (1989) seems to believe the socially integrated sphere (the non-
political, “lifeworld” or the “authentic public sphere”) that is “constituted by private
people” (p. 30) still matters when it comes to forming public opinions communicatively

126

(Eriksen & Weigard, 2003). Thus, the communicative action is a useful theory for the
illumination of grassroots-level participatory development practices.
Now that we have theoretical standards which enable us better understand the
communicative acts I am going to analyze. What comes next is data presentation and
analysis. In putting what I have learned from the field observations into perspective, I
borrowed Kenneth Burke’s Dramatistic Method approach, which offers a logical
approach to understanding human motives.
Burke (1968) developed the pentad as a critical framework used to analyze human
motivation as embedded in symbolic actions. The pentad is a five-element (act, scene,
agent, agency and purpose) frame, which is used to understand why people do what they
do. I employ the Burkean method to understand how NGO-community meeting
participants enact participation and to reflect on why they act in the ways they do.
Communication scholars have long used Burke’s theory (symbolic action) and the
pentadic tool for the analysis of political speeches (Meisenbach, Remke, Buzzanell &
Liu, 2008). Recently, scholars have employed the pentadic mapping in a number of
different ways to study various rhetorical artifacts ranging from songs (Sealey-Morris,
2009) to interviews (Messenbach et al., 2008) to a live negotiation process (Fox, 2002).
The pentadic approach is appropriate especially for the study of the performative
dimensions of rhetoric that manifest in grassroots public deliberations. Fox (2002)
argues, “Dramatism offers critical researchers of workplace communication a useful
analytical tool” (p. 365). She used Burke’s pentad to analyze a case study of the
negotiation process between technical writers and engineers in a workplace setting.

127

In the current study, this approach generally enables me, as a critic, to better
understand how decisions on things that matter to communities are made (act) through
public deliberations (agency) against certain rhetorical situations (scene) that might have
required the meeting participants (actors) to enact the “community participation” drama
in certain ways to achieve the ultimate goal of community development (purpose). My
choice of the pentadic approach is consistent with my argument in Chapter Three for the
marriage of rhetorical criticism and field methods rooted in ethnography. I try here to
maintain a good balance between describing situations on the ground and critically
reflecting on them.
In doing the analysis, I first provide descriptions that account for the five
elements. Burke (1969) argued, ” Any complete statement about motives will offer some
kind of answers to these five questions: what was done (act), when or where it was done
(scene), who did it (agent), how he did it (agency), and why (purpose)” (p. xv). In the
current research the cases selected for analysis are meetings. It is often difficult in
situations where there are multiple competing interests and where there is no clearly
identified rhetor to spot the five pentadic elements. I embrace the complexity and try to
show the scope of ambiguity as they play out. Burke (1969, xviii) argued, “What we want
is not terms that avoid ambiguity, but terms that clearly reveal the strategic spots at
which ambiguities necessarily arise” (emphasis in original). In my effort to locate the
five pentadic elements, I focus on the roles emphasized in the rhetoric of community
participation. Different people can look at the same rhetorical events I observed and
come up with different elements (act, scene, agent, agency and purpose).

128

Once I have identified the five elements, I explore the relationships (“ratios”)
among these elements. Rations are important relationships that exist between the
elements of pentad. Looking at this relationships, according to Burke, is critical in
understanding motives. There are twenty possible conjunctions or “ratios” (e.g., act-
agent, act-scene, agent-scene, etc), which provide different screens through which we can
see the “drama.” According to Burke, some ratios are more salient than others. Thus, I
would focus on four pentadic rations namely scene-agency, agent-agency, agent-act and
agency-act ratios since agency is the dominant element that embodies participation. The
mapping process with each case would lead me to answers of three main questions: 1)
how does power manifest itself in behaviors and relationships of organizations and
meeting participants? 2) To what extent have community members and NGO workers
been able to influence the direction and outcome of deliberative processes? 3) How close
were the meetings I observed to the “ideal speech situation” JürgenHabermas described?
In what follows, I present each of the two representative cases, turn by turn,
together with the corresponding pentadic mapping. First, I focus on the tight pentadic
circumference, which is the NGO-community meeting in each case. Then, I explore the
pentadic relationships considering the wider, societal circumference. By looking at the
drama at this level, I study how the complex relationships between the local, the national
and the international-level might have affected the nature of the drama in the tighter
circumference.
Case 1: Oxfam-Community Meeting
I got a chance to observe four Oxfam-community encounters in the Limmu Seqqa
woreda. Two of them were adult literacy programs supported by Oxfam and offered to

129

the community by the Adult and Non Formal Education Association in Ethiopia
(ANFEAE). The adult literacy program followed a skills training approach dominated by
a top-down flow of information followed by demonstrations. Whereas the experts were
the sources of information, the adult learners were there mainly to hear from the source
and try to put new information into farming practices. The learners rarely engaged in
discussions. They had to give short answers whenever asked. In my view, these two adult
literacy programs – do not provide the best examples of NGO-community interaction (see
photos in appendices A & B). The other two observations were a women’s association
weekly meetings attended by an Oxfam agent. I chose the the two meetings for analysis
because of the effort participants put into to make decisions. In what follows, I will
describe the rhetorical situation and look at this meeting through the pentadic ratios.
Scene-agency ratio. On October 30, 2012, Oxfam-supported community-based
origination, Lelistu10 Women’s Saving and Self-help Association held one of its regular
weekly meetings. The meeting took place in a “meeting hall” (see appendix C) located
within a few minutes walking distance from the villages in which most of the members
lived. A lady who formerly used it as a kindergarten class area abandoned this “hall”.
Located about 100 meters away from this location, the administration office of the kebele
keeps an eye on the facility.
As I approached the meeting venue, together with a young, Ethiopian Oxfam
agent, I started to hear some kind of crowd making a considerable noise. Close to 50
people, mostly women, were there. While a few were sitting in the corrugated metal sheet

10
Lelistu means “sprout” in the Oromo language which is spoken by over 95 per cent of
the total Limmu Seqqa woreda population. It shows the women’s conviction to come out
of their shell and change their situation for good.

130

roofed hall, which had walls made of unprocessed wooden logs, others were carrying on
small group informal conversations right in front of the hall. When we arrived, they got
into the hall and sat on long, wood log benches. After a while, most of the women were
dismissed, because they were told the meeting of the day concerned only the “executive
committee members.” I later learned that the meeting actually brought together the
executive committee of the association (consisting of the chair, vice chair, secretary,
treasurer and a few other members) and the grain mill committee (consisting of chair,
secretary and treasurer).
Lelistu association members met every Wednesday to deposit weekly savings.
Following the fee collections, members would sit down together at the meeting hall and
discuss issues of concern. Sometimes the Oxfam agent and the government cooperatives
organizer would participate in the meetings. Reports on financial and other administration
matters are heard every month. Apparently this particular meeting was organized because
a grain mill purchased for Lelistu Women’s Self-help Association “retarded” after
working only for a month. The women suspected that a “forged” part was put into the
grain mill when it was assembled seven months previously. They stopped operating for
fear of breaking a major part. The discussion centered around what to do to fix the mill
and get it back into efficient service.
It can be generally said that the scene contained the agency. The meeting location
seemed to be the natural habitat for the association members because it was close to
where they lived and relatively independent. They seemed to have felt at home. Their
opportunities to discuss issues openly and make decisions did not appear to be
constrained by the meeting location.

131

Agent-agency ratio. The majority of the executive committee members of Lelistu
Association (agents in this drama) were middle-aged housewives who had lived in the
Seqqa locality for their entire lives. They earned their income from small-scale coffee and
crops (e.g., Corn, teff and millet) farming. Since coffee is the main cash earner, they
would be okay economically in a year where “coffee gives good [yield].” More often than
not, they struggle to make ends meet.
Lelistu self-help association was formed ten years ago. Members gave the biggest
credit for the formation of the association to the Women’s Affairs Office of the local
government. The association had secured legal standing by meeting the government
registration requirements. Members have written bylaws with the help of the local
government office. According to their regulations, executive committee members are to
be elected by association members and serve six-year terms. Lelistu members used to be
teased and ridiculed by their husbands and other members of the community for
“unnecessarily gathering and spending time talking.” Mekiya, one of the executive
committee members, noted, “Some people even considered us heathens because they
thought we went against Islamic traditions. We didn’t give them a damn.” Attesting to
this, Abawari, the government person, indicated that these women “have beaten every
criticism.” Gradually, community members and the husbands of these women have
started to embrace the advantages of organizing.”
As of November 2012, Lelistu Association had 107 members who save 1 Birr (the
equivalent of US $ 0.05) a week. The money they saved over the years paid for a certain
part of the grain mill Oxfam helped them buy. The women hold meetings on various
issues on a weekly basis. The chairperson of the association noted the meetings helped

132

them “learn from each other.” The majority of these women have hardly had any formal
education. Oxfam has given them repeated training on developing savings and financial
management.
On the other hand, the Oxfam staff member is a college graduate who is about
half the age of most of the committee members. She was the face of Oxfam in the area. I
could tell, based on my observation, that she had an amicable relationship with the
community. Despite her age, she seemed to be on top of situations and the association
chairperson described her as “our mother.” The women were so happy to see her come
back to the village after they heard about the car accident she was involved in. Part of the
reason she connected well with the community could be because she spoke their language
and understood the culture very well. She grew up in a place that shares a lot with these
communities.
The Oxfam staff introduced me and told them to proceed with their meeting “as if
we (she and I) are not here.” I thought she said that because she knew I was interested in
observing community participation. She either wanted me to see for myself the
association committees could hold discussions and reach consensus or she wanted to buy
time and see what directions they wanted to go with their agendas. She came back to the
village after two months of absence because of a concussion she picked up from a car
accident.
Participants were neither intimidated nor pressured to change the nature of their
deliberations in significant ways because of the presence of the Oxfam agent and
cooperatives organizer. In some instances she helped bring some important ideas in the
form of questions (e.g. “Do you have any idea about the price [of the part to be

133

purchased]?” and made suggestions here and there (e.g. “It would be good if you talk to a
person who has experience working with mills”)
Lelistu Association chair, Saba (49), took the floor to present the situation that
lead up to the discussion that followed. When I interviewed her later, she told me she had
no formal education whatsoever. She was confident, articulate and seemed to have the
experience of leading meetings. She never tried to impose her ideas on others. She
preferred to ask questions like “What can we do about the grain mill? Where can we get
the money we need to purchase the broken part and for the labor costs? She asked some
participants to calm down when they got upset and started to yell at each other. There
were some instances of side talks. The participants spoke in random orders without
waiting for permission from the chairperson. Sometimes they never waited until others
finished speaking. The chairperson cared more about reaching agreement on the solutions
for the problem at hand. The association chairperson, the secretary, the treasurer and
grain mill committee chair were by far the most active participants. Especially two
women that were sitting on the far corner did not speak out.
In general, the ways the community actors had acted during the deliberative
process (agency) was very much influenced by the social identity they had individually
(poor farmers aspiring to help raise their family income) and collectively as members of
the community and Lelistu association. Their honesty, commitment to change and
passion made the deliberation (agency) lively.
Agent-act ratio: To provide a more nuanced description, I would present the
agent-act ratio based on the two different agents: the Oxfam worker and the community
members. The Oxfam agent took more of a laid back position during the meeting. Even

134

then, her very presence seemed to have mattered. Her power was demonstrated, among
others, by the way the ladies rushed into the hall when we arrived. She drives her power
from the expertise she had and her membership in a development and advocacy
organization, Oxfam. I observed that the women talked to the Oxfam agent with due
respect. The meeting did not start until they got a “go ahead” from her.
Her voice was soft but still had an authoritative tone. For a person like me, who
was socialized into the Oromo culture, her influence was noticeable. Had it not been for
the organization and expertise she embodied, she would not have the chance to speak in
front of elders, let alone influencing the direction of their meeting. This is a culture where
elders are highly respected, under normal circumstances. However, given the power this
young Oxfam worker embodied, the participants of the meeting behaved in a manner that
fits the power relationships. During this particular meeting, it was difficult to cite many
examples of how she influenced the meeting. She took more of a backstage position. I
had a sense her agency could have possibly swayed decisions. The participants were
trying to look the Oxfam agent and the government worker in their eyes every time they
were going to make suggestions. She jumped in only when she found it necessary to give
some directions like “you also need to purchase tickets to control your income properly.
You better include that in your minutes.” After participants decided to get the mill fixed,
the Oxfam agent offered to help with purchasing the spare part for the mill from Jimma,
the nearest big town to the Limmu Seqqa locality. She was also heard saying “I will come
back next week and see how far you have accomplished.”
The other agents were the ten committee members. Very strong social bonds
between them made it easier for them to reach understanding and make decisions. Not

135

only did they live in the same village, but also had a lot in common culturally. A great
majority of them were Muslims. They seemed to trust each other. For example, the
treasurer said, “I can let you borrow the money with me and get it back. I don’t even need
your signature. I believe you.” Compromises derived from the blend of modern
organizational bureaucracies with traditional community values helped facilitate
understanding and decision-making. The power they got by virtue of membership on the
executive committee seemed to have given them confidence to express themselves and
pass decisions. This is not usually the case in predominantly Muslim and patriarchal
communities. Thus, their relationships with the in-group members served as a social
capital that enhanced the deliberative process (agency) and ability to make decisions
(act).
Agency-act ratio: Having seen how the meeting proceeded, I wondered how the
means used in negotiating solutions (i.e deliberations, agency) might have affected the
decision-making act. The meeting was attended by women who were legitimate to
conduct open discussions on the agenda for the day (by virtue of being elected leader of
the association). Except for the association’s secretary who had to miss because of
ailment, every other executive committee member was in attendance.
Most of the participants effectively used their chances of airing out concerns,
ideas and making suggestion. Occasionally a few of them talked at a time and the
meeting looked chaotic. There were also instances they got off track and talked about
other issues (e.g. about a missing, five-year old child). Not only the chairperson but also
any other concerned participant had to appeal “let us get back to our agenda, please.”

136

There were lots of noises coming from the outside. Even then, they tried to stay focused
and deliberated on the agenda.
Ever participant had a good understanding of Afran Oromo, the language spoken
by over 95% of the population. A couple of them preferred to speak in Amharic. While
there was no agreement made on the language to be used and other procedural issues,
there seemed no problem of understanding. They were okay with the switching of
languages. They would read non-verbal cues and emotions and respond appropriately. It
did not take them long time to reach agreements on each issue. In fact, the whole meeting
took about twenty-seven minutes.
Whereas the chairperson assumed the formal responsibility of setting up the
meeting, emphasizing the agreed on points and wrapping it up, the meeting was largely
chaired collaboratively. Everybody jumped in and gave directions and asked for order
whenever they felt like doing it. They were comfortable expressing agreements (saying
“ok,” “yes”) or disagreements (“no,” “why should we?” and even “I don’t agree”).
Organizing into a savings and self-help association and meeting regularly seemed to have
helped them learn about modern bureaucratic practices like meeting procedures, taking
minutes and financial management.
Thus, the deliberations they conducted (agency) seemed to have made collective
decision-making (act) possible. It appeared they arrived at a decision which is
legitimately right for the problem, at least at that particular moment (this is what
Habermas and other scholars would consider as procedural rationality). The secretary
wrote the minutes while other participants had some informal conversations in a more

137

relaxed situation. As soon as she was done, she read the minutes aloud and they were
signed by everyone. Literally the minutes translate as:
We the undersigned executive committee members discussed about the grain mill
and decided that the mill should be fixed. It is agreed the money needed for this
purpose is to be taken from the account of the grain mill in the form of a loan. The
expenses include Birr 500 [$ 25] for the purchase of the part, Birr 200 [$10] for
per diem of the person to go and buy. In addition, agreement has been reached to
spend Birr 20 [$10] for the purchase of 10 pads of tickets.
Overall, the meeting of the executive committee members of Lelistu self-help
association held (in the presence of Oxfam agent and a government employed
cooperatives organizer) was for the most part participatory. It might be difficult to
suggest it has met all the four requirements of the ideal speech situation standards
outlined by Habermas. All the committee members had attended the meeting. The
meeting was inclusive of voices since these committee members were elected by the
general association membership. There was no signs of excluding voices. In principle,
they had equal voice and equal chances to make arguments. Participants seemed to be
empowered to discuss issue and make decisions. But, let us not forget that these
committee members are leaders elected mostly because of their better education and
capacity of articulating ideas. They were honest with each other and with themselves.
There was no overt attempts of coercion. Still, I cannot propone the process was totally
free from power relationships.

138

Case 2: World Vision-Community Meeting
Between October 14 and November 10, 2012, I observed five World Vision and
community joint meetings held in different villages of Adama Woreda. All five meetings
had a similar purpose of creating the fiscal year’s specific work plans and deciding on
community members who were to be targeted for individual activities. World Vision does
this planning every year in this time frame because the fiscal year begins on October 1st
for the organization. Thus, in what follows, I describe in detail the meeting conducted in
kebele X (pseudo name) and the situations leading up to the meeting.
I was very excited to go on my first trip to rural community villages, nine years
after I quit my job with World Vision. The first chance came after I stayed in World
Vision staff’s office and residence compound for more than a week, waiting for this
meetings to happen (In the mean time I was interviewing staff members, individual
community and local government experts). The camp is a well-fenced compound located
at the outskirts of a small town, Melkassa. Most of the World Vision staff residence
quarters I knew looked nothing like the community. They looked fancy, well maintained
and protected kind of symbolically suggesting the status difference between the staffers
and the community they are there to serve. I understand, the organization finds it difficult
to keep experts away from major cities unless it provides them with extra facilities. The
compound’s main gate has always been closed. A guard who constantly stays at the gate
opens it for whoever is authorized to come in. In an informal conversation, one of the
guards told me he needed to get permission from “the office” before allowing community
members come in.

139

At about eleven o’clock in the morning, I left the camp with a World Vision agent
(a well-intentioned, hard working Ethiopian person in his mid thirties hereafter referred
to as World Vision agent or “development facilitator,” his formal title). We were joined
by a community worker who World Vision had hired from the Melkassa locality. He is
the person that serves as a cultural liaison between World Vision and the community. He
does all the grassroots routines in kebeles designated to him and reports to the
development facilitator. Hereafter, I refer to this person as World Vision “Community
worker). Two government-employed development agents who live in the town of
Melkassa came with us to the kebele office in World Vision’s station wagon. On our way,
I kept thinking that trip symbolized the dominant direction of information flow; from the
powerful elites who are based in the towns to the villagers. Some of us brought bottled
water because the village had no safe running water. If villagers get water from springs
capped by World Vision, they had to walk, on average, for over half an hour.
A distance of about seven miles took us close to half an hour because some of the
roads were treacherous dirt roads. Upon our arrival, the kebele leaders started to clean
two old tables in the small (2.5 by 5 meters) main office of kebele X before the meeting,
which started a few minutes after we got there. When the meeting began, there were eight
participants (all men) that included the World Vision development facilitator, the World
Vision community worker, two school principals, two government development agents,
the kebele chairperson and a child caretaker. About half an hour later, three women
participants joined the meeting (two of them identified themselves as community child
caretakers and the third one was a health extension agent hired by the local government).
Out of the total eleven participants, seven were elites (at least by local standards) who

140

had completed at least high school. Five of them had some college education. The most
educated person in the meeting was the World Vision facilitator who had a college
degree. All but the World Vision community worker were not originally from the locality
they are working in. They were assigned to work there because of their expertise. With at
least two years of service in the area, they had a fairly good knowledge of the locality.
All of these people get paid (two of them by World Vision and the rest by the state).
The World Vision facilitator asked participants to introduce themselves. They told
their names and roles in the kebele’s development committee. Then, the World Vision
person introduced me as a university teacher who was there to do research about
communication among development partners. It did not seem to matter to them why I
was there. They treated me with respect, as they usually do with all visitors. I took a seat
in the back.
The World Vision development facilitator spoke for the first eight minutes, in
Amharic, introducing the purpose of the meeting as “discussing the activities to be done
by World Vision in this kebele” and explaining why their “participation” was important.
He admitted they did not conduct such a meeting before as much as they should and
promised they [World Vision] would make meetings like that the modes operandi. He
took out a chart of planned activities and handed out a couple of copies that were
received by the school principals. Others, including the Kebele chairman, had no interest
in keeping the copies when they were passed around for they were written in English. I
am not sure how many of the four farmers would read anything written in any local
language, let alone a foreign language one acquires in Ethiopia at higher levels of
learning. The idea of what language to use was not tabled for discussion let alone being

141

agreed on. The meeting procedures and ground rules for the meeting were never
discussed. Since it was stated that they had not held a meeting like this for a while, one
cannot think the meeting procedures were understood by every participant. Although no
one other than the World Vision development facilitator had Amharic as their mother
tongue, the meeting proceeded in Amharic with the facilitator promising translations into
Afan Oromo language. Despite some sporadic efforts at translation, Amharic was the
medium of “communication”. English expressions were used sometimes (e.g. when the
facilitator read activities from the plan). From their facial expressions, I could tell that
some of the participants were bored. For instance, the child caretaker who was sitting by
the right side of the World Vision facilitator looked outside the room, yawned and
frequently used his hand to support his chin (see picture in appendix D). The same was
true of the kebele chairperson. Whenever he got the chance to speak, he tried to switch
the language of the meeting to Afan Oromo. It was apparent there was a slight increase in
the level of interaction when they used Afan Oromo. Those instances did not last long,
though.
The kebele chairperson appeared to be the person conducting the meeting. He
took his rightful chair behind a table placed at the center, in front of the wall opposite the
gate to the small room. Since he is an elected leader for the kebele, one would expect him
to be the most vocal person on matters pertaining to his community. As soon as the
meeting started the World Vision facilitator emerged as the real leader of the meeting.
Even though he sat on a desk on the left side of the kebele chairperson, he spoke for the
first forty-two minutes with little interruption from the other participants. All the
participants turned their face towards him, for most of the meeting.

142

Scene-agency ratio. Participation does not occur in a vacuum. A number of local,
national and international factors affect the nature of citizen-participation in the
deliberations on development. The fact that the meeting was being conducted in the
kebele office symbolically implied that the local government is, at least nominally, in
control of the development process. Four out of the five meetings I attended at World
Vision’s development site were conducted in kebele offices. People who carried AK-47
machine guns attended some meetings (see photo in appendix E). These participants
came to the meetings because they had roles in development (like community child
caretakers) in addition to being militiamen. However, it is important to note that machine
guns are signs of power in countries like Ethiopia. They have been the means to get
power and hold on to it. In another kebele, a big photo of the former Prime Minister was
hanging on the wall. These acts may not have been done with the intention of
intimidating participants. That was just the way things are locally. Even then, I got a
feeling that “the government” was right there watching what was going on. This is
consistent with the discourse “the government is the owner of development.” Thus, in the
case of the particular meeting under discussion, the scene somehow discouraged a more
open discussion (agency). The meeting was conducted with a pre-set agenda, using the
Amharic language, and seemed to be intimidating to some of the grassroots community
participants, especially those who had no formal education.
I thought meeting under a tree would have been a more natural habitat for the
community members. Especially in the Oromo community, huge cultural significance is
attached to the oak tree. The Oromos traditionally held important discussions and

143

reconciliations in the shade of sacred trees. They have had rituals of sacrificing to their
deity under such trees.
Agent-agency ratio. A basic condition for agents to participate in deliberations is
that they get included and have access to important information. In the case under study,
the World Vision agent appeared to be the sole source of information because of prior
involvement in the preparation of the plan matrix. Better educated participants (school
principals and government employed development agents) had a better chance of
understanding the information circulated on the day of the meeting while other
participants that represented the community seemed hand tied because the plan matrix
was written in English. Communicating through writing is not a medium these
participants are familiar with. By contrast, another meeting two of World Vision’s
development facilitators held on October 9, 2012 in Adama town with higher level
government employed professional was intense because participants seemed to be on the
same page. They all fully understood the concepts discussed. Some plans were slightly
changed as a result of real negotiations. World Vision agents were pressed to explain
when they said they cannot accept changes demanded by agents from the government
side.
The World Vision agent was the only person who had expert-level knowledge of
the kebele plan. He walked other participants through the plan matrix. He read most of
the things as written (in English) followed by some efforts at translation. All other
participants had Afan Oromo as their vernacular language except the World Vision agent
who came from a different ethnic group. The meeting continued to be in Amharic for the
most part. When participants had difficulties understanding some of the ideas, the kebele

144

chairperson translated them into Afran Oromo. In most cases during the meeting the
expert’s language was privileged. The predetermined plan that the expert brought to the
meeting in the form of a matrix, which was written in English, gave the World Vision
person more control in expressing his ideas while the other participants seemed to be
constrained by the matrix and language.
The deliberations in the meeting between community and World Vision agents
were of low intensity because of the imbalance in the rhetorical power between the agents
of the organization and ordinary community members. Whenever they got the rare
chance of speaking out, the community participants spent their time appreciating what
World Vision had done for them in the past and politely asking for more support in
certain areas. Even the kebele chairman, supposedly the most powerful person in the
community, was asking, “You allocated budget to support three students going to college
from our kebele, will that be enough? We kindly ask you to increase the budget, if you
could, and support more kids.” Comparatively, the tone of the development workers hired
by the government was a little more authoritative. For example, Birhanu, an agricultural
development agent, argued, “It would be good if you could revise this plan and see if
there are opportunities to build more school classrooms.” The same person posed a
challenge to World Vision when he suggested, “I think you [World Vision] to reconsider
your idea that most of the beneficiaries of the planned development programs should be
sponsored children. There are kids and families in worse poverty situations than the
children in sponsorship.”
Agent-act ratio. This particular meeting organized by World Vision had two
important purposes: 1) Appraisal of the fiscal year development activity plan (which

145

includes passing decisions accepting, modifying and rejecting proposed activities) and, 2)
Selection of direct beneficiaries for each plan in the areas of education, health and
agriculture. What follows explores the role participants had in decision-making.
The World Vision facilitator (agent) dominated both the deliberations (agency)
and the decisions made (act). Even if we assume there was a level ground and power
imbalance was bracketed, the World Vision facilitator was the one who spoke for the
good part of the meeting time. In that sense, he had a better chance to make arguments
and hence influence decisions. He had clearly observable advantages drawn from
representing an organization communities have been looking upto for over twenty-five
years and having the expertise to navigate through organizational bureaucracies. No other
participants but him had set the meeting agenda. It is likely that he had thought about his
rhetorical strategies in advance.
He made most of the important decisions and encouraged the community
participants to make decisions on less significant issues (e.g. selecting end users of
projects). The community representatives insisted World Vision should make decision
ironically implying whose decision matters. For instance, when they were told to come
together and select beneficiaries later, a school principal suggested it was better to make
all decisions when World Vision staff members were still in the meeting. His argument
was that community members not targeted would take it if they knew World Vision made
the selection. Similarly, the kebele chairperson identified some areas of challenge and
asked the facilitator, “Will you help us on these matters? It is fine if you can’t give us
decisions now. You can take time and look at it.” The World Vision facilitator replied,
“We are not here to make every decision. We are here to let you know what is planned.”

146

As witnessed in many instances, though, he contradicted himself by making decisions.
For example, he gave them instructions, towards the end of the meeting, to select
beneficiaries and submit the list in a week. Even if the other participants argued it was
difficult to get that done in a week, he insisted the organization’s deadline for purchase
request submission was working against them. The first major effort of push back on the
community side did not make any difference. Agent was more important in deciding act,
rather than agency.
Whereas identifying with the development organization seemed to give some
participants decision-making power, other community members reflected lack of
confidence in decision-making. Participants other than the World Vision staff were given
the assignment of identifying individual and families to be included in the planned
development interventions. The kebele chairperson, the two school principals and two
government-hired development agents had their voice heard, at least in the form of asking
questions and making suggestions. Real representatives of the community had no role in
decision-making. The community actors were collapsed into being part of the scene. The
voice of the three women (two community members and a government health extension
agent) were muted.
Agency-act ratio. Deliberations (agency) dominated by discourses of
paternalistic “donor-receiver” relationships on the one hand and stringent organizational
bureaucracy on the hand stunted opportunities to reach at rational decisions. The
powerful agents, rather than the better arguments (agency) had a bigger chance to decide
the outcome of the meeting. In fact, most of the decisions (act) were made prior to the

147

meeting. The meeting drama was staged, mainly, for window dressing purposes. In what
follows, I present examples that would help explain why I make these claims.
To begin with, the plan matrix brought to the meeting and presented by the World
Vision facilitator not only set the stage but also dictated the directions of the subsequent
discussions. Participants, especially those from World Vision, based their arguments on
the annual plan, which was reportedly drawn from the five-year plan made at the start of
the current project. When the community participants brought their development needs to
the table, both the World Vision persons argued that the community “fully participated”
in the designing of the five-year program and implied that the community should take
responsibility for what the plan is missing. As a compromise, the World Vision staff
suggested, “New needs will be addressed in the next phase if the organization extends the
program life time.” The fact that “community participation” in the past was used to limit
the space for discussing current concerns is a noteworthy point.
The meeting proceeded in the form of lecture, giving directions, and question and
answer at best. The experts outnumbered the real community representatives (farmers)
(World Vision facilitator, two school principals and three development agents paid by the
state). In a situation like this, one does not expect argumentative fair play. The
community representatives other than the kebele chairperson were silent for the most
part. It could be because they came later but three of them sat at the gate and sometimes
looked outside. It is not clear why influential leaders, elders and heads of organized
grassroots groups did not represent the community (e.g., Sugarcane producer’s
cooperatives).

148

Sitting in meetings I got the sense that there was a clear divide between World
Vision and the community. The strong claim of close collaboration between the
organization and the community should have been demonstrated by permeable
boundaries between the two. Contrary to this, what I saw was a relationship marked by
hierarchy and divide. I could easily spot the discourse of donor-receiver relationships.
The community participants were frequently heard saying, “We appreciate what you have
done for us.” Or, “we would be very grateful if you could” do this or that for us.
Similarly the World Vision facilitator used discourses of “we provide this support.”
These discourses of hierarchy frequently reminded participants that there is some kind of
“Big brother” to make good decisions. Such notion might have diminished chances of
collaborative decision-making.
Most of the meetings I observed in the Melkassa locality were not as open as they
claimed to be. The constraints mostly came from conflicting organizational interests of
“empowering communities” and “getting work done efficiently.” Thus, the point of
compromise the facilitators seemed to have found was holding meetings with
communities but maintain the status quo. So, what purpose do the meetings serve? What
a facilitator was overheard saying as we came out of a meeting answers this question
perfectly: “We have foul plaid them [the participants]. That is it.” This World Vision
facilitator had no prior information about what I was studying. The second World Vision
person who was with us got shocked and looked at me without saying anything. Limited
attempts of demanding World Vision to incorporate current needs of the community into
the plan was pushed back by the agent of the organization on the grounds of procedures
and lack of resources for additional activities. He told them, “We can’t do everything by

149

ourselves. The government and you got to participate. You might need to contribute
resources.” This discourse is consistent with the dominant frame of participation-making
financial and labor contributions.
In sum, the ability of community participants to negotiate and influence decisions
was minimal in the case of World Vision-community meetings I observed. The outcomes
of the meetings were predictable. What I saw in the meetings is mostly how power
manifests itself in the conversations between participants rather than collaborating to get
better solutions for development challenges. There did not seem to be a shift of power
from the powerful organizations to the community. During my field days I did not see
any instances of the communities taking the initiative to invite NGO workers to come and
talk with them about development.
Pentad: Wider Societal Circumference
In the pentadic analysis of NGO-community joint meetings , we have seen that
the underlying motive of holding those meetings was sending a signal that decisions on
issues that matter to the community were being passed in democratic ways rather than in
the traditional top-down manner. In the proceeding analysis, I chose to focus on the
narrow, grassroots context. Burke (1969) notes, we have to select a circumference of the
scene, as “the choice of circumference for the scene in terms of which a given act is to be
located will have a corresponding effect upon the interpretation of the act itself” (p. 77).
What is referred to as “circumference” by Burke is the “orbit” of the scene that contains
the act. The notion of circumference is important especially in the interpretation of the
motivation of the scene-act. According to Burke, “the quality of the context in which a
subject is placed will affect the quality of the subject placed in that context” (pp. 77-78).

150

In what follows, I do a brief analysis of the pentadic relationships between
elements in the wider circumference pentad. I will start by listing the pentadic elements
for the wider circumference. Then, I will do the analysis of agents-agency and agents-act
ratios. Finally, I bring the dramas in the tighter and wider circumferences in conversation
to better understand to what extent what happens in the national and global arenas affect
the nature of grassroots community deliberations. The pentadic elements for the wider
circumference are:
i. Scene: Ethiopia – a poor country in desperate need of outside aid to
help improve the lives of its citizens.

ii. Act: NGO development aid and projects

iii. Agents: NGOs – Oxfam, World Vision, and international aid
organizations (World Bank, IMF, UN, etc.), national governments

iv. Agency: International rules and Ethiopian government control the
process.

v. Purpose: Ethiopian development

Agent-agency ratio: In the last three decades NGOs have become a major
phenomenon in development. However, they never had the kind of legitimacy nation
states enjoy because NGOs are non state actors that are not elected by any constituency.
Though they collaborate with intergovernmental agencies like the UN and the World
Bank on a number of issues, NGOs have only consultative roles with the UN. They
cannot influence policies directly. Their role is limited to using their expertise and skills
in organizing voices to persuade members of the UN (nation states) to set up agendas and
pass laws that help promote development. In this regard Ahmed and Potter, 2006 argued:

151

The power of NGOs, then, is the power to persuade. Their power consists of
demonstrating through persuasion and action that there are other ways of
organizing social and political arrangements besides those currently in use.
Consider the common activities of NGOs: educating the public, advocacy,
empowering people through local economic development and network
construction, and monitoring international agreements. None of those involves
coercion, all take place within legal frameworks established by states either
individually or collectively, and all involve persuasive communication. (p. 15)
[emphasis is mine]
The other agents of global rural development are individual nation states and
intergovernmental agents. These organs do have the power to influence agency directly.
They can pass laws as individual, sovereign nations or collectively as UN membership.
Generally these agency like to see political spaces broadened for civil societies (including
NGOs). They put pressure on governments of aim receiving countries to provide NGOs
freedom to operate because of their vested interest in liberal democracy.
Governments in the receiving end pass laws that may support or constrain NGO
programs in their country. For example, the Ethiopian government has passed NGOs’
legislation as we have seen in the previous chapter. Through laws like this, the Ethiopian
government has been controlling NGOs’ operations in the country. Thus, it can be
generally said that agents of rural development (other than NGOs) can pass rules
(agency) that could facilitate or constrain NGO development programs (act).
Agent-act ratio: Not all NGOs are the same. NGOs differ in their philosophy,
approach to development, and funding partnerships (Suar, Hota & Sinha, 2006). Suar et

152

al., classified NGO into four categories: Operational or grassroots NGOs, support NGOs,
network NGOs and funding NGOs. I would say both Oxfam and World Vision are
operational and support NGOs. While Oxfam has a good reputation of international
advocacy campaigns, World Vision is very strong on the grassroots service provision
front. Long years of experiences in executing programs at grassroots levels (act) have
enabled these NGOs gain the trust of donors. Trust is important for NGOs to secure more
funding and further their development programs (act). According to Hilhorst (2003) NGO
have dual role of securing legitimacy on the one hand and living upto their claims by
engaging in the business of making life for the unprivileged others. On the quest for
“legitmation” front Hilhorst (2003) argues NGOs have to convince others of their
appropriateness and trustworthiness. Such an act, according to Hilhorst, is no easy job as
it entails convincing others that: 1) the situation or population needs development, 2) the
intervention of NGOs is indispensible and appropriate and that the NGO has no self
interest in the envisaged program, and 3) the NGO is trustworthy and capable of carrying
out the intervention.
Governments of wealthy nations and intergovernmental organizations are among
the partners of development NGOs need to persuade for funding and policy reasons. For
example, Oxfam International has lobbying offices in Washington, D.C., New York,
Brussels, and Geneva while Oxfam’s coordinating secretariat remains in Oxford. In
America, advocacy offices lobby not only the US government but also the World Bank,
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and, the UN” (Ahmed and Potter, 2006).
Especially the UN and the World Bank have modest grant programs to support NGO

153

project since 1994 (Ahmed & Potter, 2006). In 2011, World Vision got about 17.4% (485
million) of its total income (2.79 billion) (World Vision International, 2011).
Ahmed and Potter (2006) argue aid agencies as well benefit in a number of ways:
1) channeling aid through NGOs allows them to expand the scope of their aid operations
especially in countries where their official presence is thin or nonexistent, 2) because
NGOs are less constrained by bureaucratic organization, they can deliver services more
efficiently than their counterparts, 3) public subsidies for small-scale NGO projects
provide donors with a mechanism to implement a basic human-needs approach to
development, and 4) directly subsidizing voluntary-sector projects allows donors to avoid
relying on inefficient or incompetent developing country bureaucracies to reach local
levels (p. 107).
The pentadic analysis of the participatory rural development drama both at the
tighter (meeting) and wider (societal) circumferences shows that there is a visible
connection between the two. Donors expectations of NGOs to help expand liberal
democracy while at the same time maintaining the neo-liberal economic ideal of
maintaining efficiency seemed to have influenced the ways the participatory drama plaid
out at the community levels in Ethiopia. On the one hand donors’ interest of instilling
ideology pushed NGOs to pass decisions on grassroots development by bringing
communities to the meeting, at least as part of the scene. On the other hand their
requirements of making the most out of the limited resources they channeled through
NGOs put pressure on NGOs not to take time and empower communities. This paradox
of international aid is in line with the findings of Anderson, Brown and Jean (2012) who
have interviewed over 6,000 people in 21 countries (including Ethiopia) who have

154

received international assistance. They argued there are inherent contradictions and
dilemmas between the purpose of international assistance (i.e “to support people develop
their own economy, build their own peace, achieve good governance, and protect their
own human rights”) and the ways this ideal is “operationalized in the current aid system”
(p. 48). These researchers explained:
Recipients report that the steps taken to increase efficiency and effectiveness in
the delivery of assistance have increasingly locates analyses, decisions, and
choices at the delivery center. As the aid system have become more organized and
coordinated at the top, people on the receiving end have seen their own voice
curtailed. Many feel that they delivery system objectifies them. Some feel that
international actors use their poverty to raise funds, and many say that more
precise policies and standardized procedures among aid providers have reduced
the space for them, as recipients, to be involved in considering options, weighing
alternatives, and developing strategies for their own development.
Also from interviews analyzed in the next chapter, we will see that NGO workers
reported that donors want them to show “tangible” results in the shortest possible time.
They argued empowering the community by meaningfully engaging them in the process
of decision making is the right way to go about doing rural development. The two case
NGOs repeatedly argued that they are there for a short time to “empower” the
community. They believed NGO-community meetings epitomize community
empowerment. They also argued that engaging the community takes a lot of time and
patience. The next chapter presents the voices of communities, NGO workers and
employees of the local government.

155

CHAPTER 6: ETHIOPIAN’S PERCEPTIONS OF PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT
This chapter presents the data I collected through interviews. I offer details of
participants’ understanding of community participation in grassroots development and
their reported experiences working with either Oxfam or World Vision. Three voices are
represented in this chapter: (1) community residents, (2) NGO workers, and 3)
government employees. The purpose of this chapter is to report participants’ perceptions
of participatory development. The voices of the participants in the three groups will help
explain the grassroots’ notions of community participation in development. A critical
reading of how people talk about and enact participation in their day-to-day life will: 1)
illuminate the (dis)similarities between the ways these different groups frame
participation, and 2) help to see to what extent the global expert discourses have affected
home-grown words for collaborative ways of dealing with challnges participation in the
communities studied.
The communities in which I conducted my interviews are part of the
“community” Oxfam and World Vision frequently refer to in the community participation
discourses they circulate globally. Thus, it is very important to hear the voices of those
living in the subject communities and other stakeholders of development like local
government partners to understand fully how far the global discourses and the
communicative practices on the ground resemble each other.
In addition to the interviews, I will describe stakeholders’ meetings on NGO-
initiated development issues. I examine the instances in which the phrase “community
participation” surfaced in participant discussions and identify the kinds of actions

156

justified by use of the term “participation.” I also explain how participation is implied
without explicit use of the term. In chapter seven I will discuss the results of the
interviews in juxtaposition with the outcomes of the ideographic analysis and the socio-
political basis of participation in Ethiopia discussed in chapter five.
There were a total of 64 participants in this study (51 males and 13 females). I
analyzed forty-eight interviews (10 females and 38 males), which were selected by using
a quota/representation sampling technique. I would have liked the number of female and
male participants to be equal. Since Ethiopia is a predominantly patriarchal society, I did
not find many females who take part in discussions over community development issues.
Conservative Muslims made up the majority of the residents in the communities I chose
to study, which meant that there were relatively few women in the public arena.
I decided to go with forty-eight interviews because new ideas ceased to emerge
when I repeatedly read through the transcript of all the 64 interviews. I am confident that
there are no major ideas omitted. I used pseudonyms to identify specific participants.
Some government officials, scholars and development practitioners at the national level
were identified by their names because they did not mind going by their real name. I used
pseudonyms to ensure anonymity of community members, NGO staff and some local
government experts and officials. The pseudonyms are consistent with names commonly
present in the research community. I have not mentioned the names of specific villages. I
only use the name of the woreda/locality (bigger administrative areas comprising several
villages).
In this chapter, I addressed the third and fourth research questions by way of
presenting the major themes that emerged from the field study data and supporting them

157

with exemplar quotations. My third research question asked: Whose interests are served
in actual community interactions with Oxfam and World Vision staff? What
communicative roles do experts and citizens have in these interactions? The fourth
question inquired to what extent the spaces in Ethiopia were free for the engagement of
communities in public deliberations. I organized interviewees’ responses into four main
clusters, including: (a) Participants’ understanding of social change and their perception
of NGO contributions, (b) conceptualizing participation in the social change processes,
(c) expert versus citizen voices in deliberations over development, and (d) organizing for
social change and spaces for public deliberations in Ethiopia.
In the following sections, I by turn present the views of communities, government
personnel and NGO workers in connection with these four thematic clusters.
Community Voices: “NGOs are here to help us”
Community participation and all other related concepts I am studying are
grounded in the bigger concept of development or social change. Generally, social
change implies some kind of betterment in the traditional form of life of communities.
Since the communities NGOs work with are usually “the poorest of the poor” and
“marginalized,” there are clear needs for positive change in residents’ lives. Such
demands make it necessary for development actors to intervene.
The community members I interviewed frequently referred to development
mainly as the improvement in their economic condition. They want to see their basic
needs met. Such needs include sufficient food, health care and rural infrastructure.
Expressing their appreciation for the contributions NGOs are making, community

158

members emphasized the economic side of social change. For example, Gutema, a male
coffee farmer in the Limmu Seqqa locality, explained:
Oxfam workers often come to our place and encourage us. There is this very nice
girl. She is our mother…They brought us a grain mill. I didn’t get one but they
also brought us chicken. It is a very good organization. They support us a lot…
We are selling our green coffee beans with much better price because of the
promotion work they did for us. They have taught us about enhancing coffee
quality…They also awarded a few women who did exceptionally well in saving
and credit association. I pray that Oxfam stay long here.1
Similarly, a forty-year-old female coffee grower and one of the leaders of the
Lelistu Saving and Credit Association, explained that the price of a kilo (2.2 pounds) of
green coffee rose from $ 0.15 to $ 0.50 “since Oxfam came” (Mekiya). She was
appreciative of the successful advocacy role Oxfam International played in the global
arena by demanding fair trade and providing better pay for smallholding farmers. She
also talked about the diesel-operated grain mill, which is run by her association, and
about some modern bee hives selected farmers got from Oxfam. Referring to the startup
of coffee promotion work, Fikadu, a leader of Limmu Enarial Coffee Growers
Association reported that Oxfam started to work with the umbrella community-based
organization in 2009. He explained:
We [the coffee union] had been producing coffee and distributing improved
variety coffee seedlings among our members. We supplied our coffee to the
national market. That did not benefit the farmers much. Our study suggested we
needed to enter the global market. Getting to the global market and introducing

159

our coffee happened to be beyond our capacity. We realized that requires a lot of
resources. Then, we asked Oxfam to support us in this regard. That is how we
started to work with Oxfam.2
Another leader of this organic coffee growers association (Sherefa, male)
described how the union was able to organize training (e.g., training in business
management) and technical support for its seventeen-member association because of the
financial and technical backing it has been getting from Oxfam. According to the
chairperson, the coffee grown in the Limmu Seqqa locality today is exported as far as the
Netherlands and USA. “Especially Starbucks buys most of our coffee,” Fikadu explained.
I was told that the coffee from this locality was in high demand because it is organic and
grown in the shade of tropical forest. What their coffee lacked in the past was quality
because they employed traditional methods of processing and storing. Fikadu believed
they have come a long distance in that regard partly because of Oxfam’s support. Oxfam
has reportedly rented a store in Addis Ababa where coffee from Limmu Seqqa area is
stored before it is shipped overseas. Oxfam, Fikadu explained, had also hired a
professional coffee taster for them. The Chairperson of the Union also told me that the
Chocha locality, believed to be the birthplace of coffee, is only seven kilometers (4.3
miles) away from the border of Limmu Seqqa woreda.
Community members from the Adama locality expressed their appreciation for
both the humanitarian and the development support they received through World Vision.
For the most part, participants’ descriptions emphasized economic aspects of social
change. Junedin, a small scale farmer with a land holding of half a hectare (50 acres),
said:

160

In the past, they [World Vision] had been giving grain to the helpless poor people.
They bought cows and chickens from local markets and distributed them among
orphans. Some kids got money and purchased cattle…They have supported the
needy members of our community in many ways. They are the ones who built a
school in this area for the first time. This school is their contribution. They have
also built this health station for us. I can’t tell you how huge their support has been
to people in need.3
Similarly, Dinka highlights the support he has been getting from World Vision “around
HIV” among several things that the organization does in providing aid to the community.
He further explained, “It is a very nice organization. For instance, they build schools and
give exercise books to children. I can’t think of life in this area without World Vision’s
help.”
Some of the community members I interviewed seemed to suggest World Vision’s
provisions have declined. They would like to see the free handouts and the construction
of basic infrastructures continued. Sebokka, 38, explained how a lot of people benefited
from the terracing and conservation works World Vision did when they came into the
area in 1985. “But now there is nothing like that. What I see them do is just provide kids
with exercise books and support orphans go to school,” Sebokka said. Thus, we can see
that the community participants see NGOs as organizations that came to help them with
their unmet economic needs.
Conceptualizing Participation
Generally, community members understand the need to collaborate in social
change initiatives. Collaborating is a way of life and survival for them. For instance,

161

Ababiya believed “community participation is the key for the development of a county.”
He further argued,
If I start from a household job, unless every member of the family collaborates, it
is pointless that only certain members of the family work hard. By the same
token, we have Idir, Eqqub, and similar associations. If people do not participate
in such things, the result will be minimal. For example, only a few people may not
be able to finish road work. Whereas, if many people collaborate, the roadwork
would be finished and be ready for service.4
I asked the community members I interviewed to define “community participation.”
None of them said they do not know the concept. The most recurrent feature in their
definitions revolve around making labor and material contributions toward local
development initiatives. A mother of two kids, Menberu, 23, reported, “We do what we
are told to do. For example, we bring wood logs when they tell us to fetch. When there
are seedlings planting, we come out and plant. We participate in any way necessary.”
Along these lines, Dinka, 35, thought he participates in community development. Asked
what participation meant to him and how exactly he takes part, he explained,
“Community participation means people taking part in carrying out labor works. They
[World Vision] supports us in different ways and we are ready to support them in chores
requiring labor. I work. I work along with the society. Instructions come from them
[World Vision].” Participation meant “doing labor activities such as digging ditches and
fencing sites” (Ibrahim, 42) and “fetching sand and water for construction works” (Kedir,
40). Yet another participant, Sherefa, 38, thought communities get training and work
accordingly. One participant tried to quantify the share of the community’s contribution

162

for local development projects. He said, “If the government supports 70%, the
community should work for 30%. This is community participation” (Temam, 48). It is
customary in rural Ethiopia to call whoever does development work “government.”
However, peeling back the outer layers of information, one comes to understand that
most of the farmers know who is doing what for them.
Most of the reported experiences of individual community members show that
their participation is limited to labor contributions. Owing to very low incomes, financial
contributions were rarely reported. Ababiya, 48, mentioned labor, hand tools (e.g., spade,
axe) as forms of community contributions and “if there is a possibility of chipping in
money, I would also call that participation.” Kedir explained, “Mostly we make labor
contributions. We made financial contribution only once—when we paid $0.5 per
household when World Vision was working on a potable water project.”
A few participants included the contribution of ideas in their definition. For
instance, the leader of the Limmu Enaria Coffee Union, Fikadu Urgessa, argued
communities are said to have participated “when the idea of planned works comes from
the community or when they have their own role, it means that communities participate
in the form of money, labor or ideas.” Tirhas, 35, brought a gender dimension to the
definition of community participation. She claimed, “Community participation includes
women. The women should participate on a par with men. For example, women [in the
Limmu Seqqa locality] are participating in agriculture, growing coffee and bee hives.”
Mekiya, a leader of the women’s credit association with 107 members, underscored the
point in saying, “This association is itself a form of participation. We are participating as
women.”

163

Community members had a very modest way of describing their role in
development activities for they considered themselves insignificant factors. I asked
Menberu if they would contribute ideas during discussions. She replied, “We accept their
ideas and implement since we are ignorant. What advice can we give them?” A fellow
woman participant, Alemitu, 32, explained they contribute only in the form of labor since
“we don’t have knowledge to support them in that regard.” Alemitu also explained, “We
work together when they [World Vision] give us orders.” It was hardly possible to come
by community members making strong claims that they are the owners and stakeholder
of development projects in their locality. They frequently frame their role in such a way
that they are there to wait for others to come to the rescue of the community. Lemma
blamed such an attitude on the “dependency syndrome” created among his community as
a result of many years of free hand outs. “There is no such a thing among the people.”
Lemma noted, “Ok I am helped today, let me work hard, help myself and give back to the
community.”
A few participants (e.g., Dinka, Junedin and Sebokka) seem to suggest grassroots
organizations have a stronger voice than individual community members. In this regard,
Sebokka pointed out, “They [World Vision] usually meet with children’s committee
members of our village, they don’t bring together all of us. They reach the community
through the committee.” Similarly, Junedin thought only the village committee members
have the agency to give “advice” to NGOs. He explained:
We do not need to make suggestions. What they say is acceptable. We just accept
and implement. How can we advise them? They are educated people. We ask
them questions and they answer. Other than that, what can you advise them to do?

164

Do they accept if we advise them? They ask us “how is life?” “How is the area
doing?” and we tell them about development stuff. …They consulted us once
before, before they embarked on a water project.5
I observed from the interviews that some participants preferred to substitute
“participation” for “advice” making it sound like a one-way process. This could be
because the advice (“gorsa” in the vernacular Afan Oromo language) is a big part of the
culture in the Oromo communities. They have high regard for the elders. They are the
ones to give advice and the other community members are there to accept and lead life
accordingly. Not accepting or challenging the views of the elders is considered very rude.
Community members talk very little about contributing ideas. There were a few
exceptions to this. When I insisted that Ababiya tell me what else, other than contributing
labor or money, could be considered participation, he pointed out, “Discussing the
importance of things, everybody putting forth their own ideas and reaching consensus is
by itself one form of participation.”
Some influential community members, who are either elders or better educated,
suggested they play some kind of intermediary role. They persuade community members
to adopt innovations brought about my NGOs and the government. In this regard, Junedin
explained, “We participate based on the guidelines they [Word Vision] give us. There are
seedlings that they bring. We convince the community to plant them. We also persuade
them to try water harvesting and new terracing techniques on their plots.”
According to some participants the “guidelines” include formal short-term
trainings they received on specific issues of interest. Sebokka explained, “We participate
in training organized by World Vision. They pay us per diems and offer training on

165

agriculture. We learn new things and implement those.” It is important to note the
practices of some NGOs in paying community members to come out and take part in
meetings and training sessions. According to Coffee Growers’ Union Chairperson,
Fikadu, one of the forms Oxfam uses in supporting them is in paying per diems for
participants in the workshops and the training the union organizes. From my past
experiences and field observations, some of the payments are justified for the NGOs take
farmers from different villages to a central place far away from their home. This central
place happens to be the nearby small town. In that case, the farmers incur additional costs
of lunch and may require transportation.
Free Spaces for Public Deliberations?
In chapter two, I discussed the importance of free space for meaningful
deliberations. Free spaces provide ordinary citizens settings to engage in discussions with
dignity and independence. Research participants, both from the community and the ranks
of NGO workers, were asked for their thoughts about the existence of sufficient free
space for deliberations in the two research sites. This section details their responses.
To begin with the community participants, most of them, one way or another,
suggested free spaces are either nonexistent or very limited. Almost all the community
participants believed they meet to discuss development issues and others with the
knowledge of their kebele (local government administration office) because “that is the
appropriate thing to do” (Ibrahim). Similarly, association leaders were cognizant of the
limits on their freedom to get together and discuss. For example, one of the leaders of
Lelistu Association indicated, “Normally, the local government office knows we meet
every week. Sometimes they come and see how we are doing. Now, we are not expected

166

to let them know every time we meet.” She also explained that new meeting types need to
be brought to the attention of the kebele. Asked if their association is free from the
control of the Kebele, Mekiya replied, “We are free. We go [to the kebele] only when
they call us.” I asked a coffee union leader if his association is free from other
institutions including Oxfam and the government. He replied, “We adhere to the rules and
regulations of the government. We can’t go beyond the rules. There is a line that we can’t
cross.” He was more comfortable explaining their independence from Oxfam. “For
example, there was a firm hired by Oxfam to promote the union. We fired the firm
because we thought they didn’t do the job right.”
Association leaders and individual community members never seemed to
complain about the lack of free space. They embraced the situation and looked for
creative ways to work within the limited spaces. Fikadu reported there are things his
association could not do “because of lack of capacity.” He thought, “There are a lot of
things we can do within the [legal] framework” if they had greater capacity.
From the responses of communities in Adama woreda, World Vision’s
intervention area, I learned that citizens are not as free as the Ethiopian Constitution
allows to gather and to talk on issues that matter to them, including development. Alemu,
64, wondered, “Why would we want to meet without their knowledge? Aren’t they our
administrators?” I brought to his attention the fact the Oromo community had a long
tradition of gathering and holding discussions and asked, “Why not now?” His concern
was that “there are various political things. We can meet either with them [local
government officials] or with their permission.”

167

The government has put five households in a neighborhood together and got them
to “elect” their leader. At the time of my field study, the concept was still new and it had
not been fully implemented in some places. While “one-to-five” seemed to be a
household name, not all people I talked to could articulate its goals very clearly. For
example, Kedir, 40, thought one-to-five groupings were introduced to find out, “Who
works? How do people spend their days and nights? What kind of movements do they
have? In particular, these groups help to identify who does activities that the government
doesn’t like?” In principle, the five households are supposed to discuss issues, collaborate
and seek solutions for challenges facing their neighborhood. Speaking of the purpose of
the grouping, Kedir indicated uncertainly, “They say it initiates us for work.”
Five or six (depending to vicinity of households) one-to-five groups together form
a larger group of 25 or 30 households in a village. When the one-to-five groups are
unable to solve problems by themselves, they take it to the issue to the larger group.
Junedin, 28, explained:
This group of thirty people [households] has people capable of leading
discussions. It also has a secretary. They try their best to find solutions at their
level. If it is beyond them, they pass it over to the zone level. The zone has 3-4
leaders. They thoroughly look at the issue and if they find it is tough, they take it
to the kebele executive committee. This body gets written reports of the efforts
made to solve it all the way from one-to-five groups to the zone. They investigate
based on the reports.6
Community participants suggested these newly introduced structures have been
beneficial in trickling down directives. There were no clear cut positions as to whether

168

they were as effective in passing development challenges and ideas bottom-up. Even if
they did, development ideas and concerns would be ignored somewhere down the line as
leaders of each groups see themselves mainly as gatekeepers of “peace and political
stability.” Keble Chairperson, Bikila, 46, claimed the structures help the flow of ideas
move both ways “easily.” “Whether or not ideas are accepted at higher levels depends on
the strength of arguments,” Bikila explains. He also argued lower-level groups have the
right to refute ideas coming from higher echelons. Kedir’s’s position seems a bit different
on challenging ideas coming from the top:
Since the government is our administrator, we try to implement orders from the
government. If we face serious problems of capacity, we would tell them we
couldn’t do it. When they ask us, “Why didn’t you do it?” “How come you were
unable to do it?” we explain our reasons. We have no right to simply reject. We
have to try our best to accept and then explain to them if we can’t.7
Asked why rejecting government ideas would not be possible, Kedir explained,
“It is the law. It comes from the government.”
The significance of traditional grassroots self-help neighborhoods, clans and
ethnic groups seem to be undermined after “modern” local structures such as the one-to-
five groups have been introduced. I asked some participants why the traditional
grassroots structures cannot serve the purpose of one-to-five groups. Tullu, 38, replied,
“Times have changed. Today people travel in different directions for work and education.
It is difficult for elders to gather them. Even when they [elders] want to share ideas with
the community, they should go through the kebele.”

169

NGO Staff Members’ Voices: “We are Empowering Communities”
Other than the material side of the help community members emphasized, the
NGO workers I interviewed seem to recognize the need for blending skills and
knowledge of innovations they want to introduce with resources available in the
communities with which they work. They define local resources as whatever
contributions the communities can make. At least theoretically, these contributions range
from ideas/indigenous knowledge to labor and money.
Oxfam personnel describe their organization as a “development and advocacy
organization,” a “learning organization,” that focuses on “value-chain development” that
likes to “put women at the heart of” what they do. They claim to closely work with the
communities they serve and involve them at all stages of the project cycle. Along the
same line, Simret explained, in Oxfam intervention works, “The one thing we promote is
dialogues. We help them establish forums at woreda, zone and regional levels. We create
market groups and make sure the community participate in discussions. In the value
chains, right from working the social all the way up, women are there, in significant
numbers.”
The organization identifies a potential cash crop in the community with which it
chooses to work. Having identified this product the organization works from local to
international levels to make sure the farmers get improved income selling the product.
According to Simret, in developing longer term strategic plans, Oxfam first does “sub-
sector analysis” and identifies the most important commercial products that could earn
the communities good incomes. Simret explained, “In Oromiya region, for example,
Oxfam wanted to work on coffee, sesame and honey. Second-round analysis suggested

170

coffee would be the most important item.” She also indicated that they then identified
Limmu Enaria Coffee Union as a potential grassroots-based partner.
Shemsiya, another Oxfam development worker, pointed out that Oxfam has
confidence in local organized partners like the coffee union, savings and credit unions,
village level government structure (ex. Kebele, got, etc.) and other community-based
units. She indicated, “When there are things we like to pass onto the community, we
often go through the development agents [of the government]. They are responsible. But,
they have many other commitments. In that case, Oxfam communicates with community
members directly.” According to Shemsiya, Oxfam employs “top-down as well as
bottom-up approaches,” while admitting that the top-down approach might be used more
frequently. This is the case, as explained by Shemsiya, because “back-donor” interest
needs to be taken into consideration. The other reasons she gave was that Oxfam may
come to an area having already identified the commodity around which to organize the
value-chain development program.
Instead of deploying a large number of its own personnel and a significant amount
of resources, Oxfam prefers to work through existing government and community
institutions. The staff members believe such an approach is in the interest of efficient use
of limited resources and also paves the way for grassroots capacity building. In this
regard, Simret had the following to say:
We had limited resources for this coffee project. When we assessed how
efficiently and effectively we could use what we had at our disposal, we
established what we can leave behind and enhance local potential. Whereas if we
were to bring more number of technical staff and do most of the jobs by

171

ourselves, there may not be much expertise transferred to the areas. That would be
a problem for project phase out… we had a similar education program in
Benishagul [Gumz] zone, we had project staffs. However, we realized that the
area identified was very remote and inaccessible. It was difficult with the 3 or 4
staffs to go to the grassroots level and reach out to all those villages. What we did
was appoint the selected villagers as leaders of the school. The students were
made to form clubs and engage in cleaning, planting trees and the likes. So if the
NGO-sector is to bring about change, increasing the number of its staffs can’t be a
solution. Grassroots level capacity needs to be built.8
Generally NGO workers suggest embracing the idea of engaging grassroots
communities in development interventions. However, a close look at how they frame
their arguments suggests that they seem to emphasize the economic benefits of involving
communities in development programs. They also have concerns about whether or not
the project outcomes would be sustained when they pull out of the areas in which they
work. There is not much difference between the thoughts of the Oxfam staff and that of
World Vision workers. The only difference I noted was that World Vision workers,
owing to their Protestant Christian identity, prefer to situate their arguments for
philanthropic missions and the rationale for valuing the communities on religious
grounds. For example, Tilahun indicated, “The organization [World Vision] is a child-
centered, founded on Christ and community-engaging organization. Simply because it
has money, it can’t jump in and start development work. It consults the community in
whatever work it does. This is the policy of the organization.” Asked if he feels, as an

172

Ethiopian, closer to the communities he is working with or with World Vision’s values
and development policies, Tilahun indicated:
In my view, World Vision belongs to the society. It came to contribute to what the
community wanted to achieve. I don’t think it [World Vision] has its own
identity. I believe it is part of the community because it didn’t come to prescribe
what should be done. It asked the community ‘what should be done?’ and crafted
programs around those needs.”9
Similarly, Zerihun, a person holding a key position at World Vision Ethiopia
headquarters, explained:
Communities are organized by the government and cultural associations. When
going to the community, holding discussions with any [of] these partners would
be the first job of any World Vision staff. We believe we can reach the citizens
through these community organizations. They know the community better as they
interact with them on [a] daily basis.10
We see here a very strong effort to blur the organization-community boundary.
While the Oxfam staff I interviewed highlighted the economic and project sustainability
advantages, World Vision staff felt the reason for involving grassroots communities
seems to have less to do with economic efficiency. In the case of the two study sites,
World Vision had considerably more financial and other resources than Oxfam did.
Historically, World Vision started in many places with humanitarian supplies then moved
on to rehabilitating famine-stricken communities, mainly handing out agricultural tools,
oxen and seeds for free. These past trends, Binyam claims, might have negatively
affected the development practices today. He explained, “This is a typical dependency

173

syndrome that developed during the worst Ethiopian famine of the mid 1980s. The relief
periods are followed by some kind of rehabilitation which focuses on farmers to get their
own food and rehabilitating the environment that has been devastated by the drought.”
According to Binyam, those practices of handouts made communities believe NGOs are
there “just to give something.” This is consistent with the dissatisfaction some
community participants expressed over reduced NGO “activities.”
In the preceding sections, we have seen how NGO workers, beneficiary
communities and government personnel described social change and the role of NGOs in
such development initiatives. Since each party has its own interests and approaches to
development, noting some differences in their conceptualization may not come as a
surprise.
Discursive Construction of “Community”
The discussion of “community participation” should start with an examination of
how NGO workers describe “the community.” I was intrigued by the question “who is the
community?” I discovered that different research participants have different ways of
conceptualizing “community.” Some NGO staff described communities as made up of
those “who own the development programs” whereas other thought communities are
those “targeted” by development programs initiated by NGOs. Even the idea of “target”
varied from individuals to households to people inhabiting a given geographic area,
usually the woreda (the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia with full presence of
government structures). For example, for Abreham, communities are “people who inhabit
a certain geographic area and have similar culture and values.” He went on to explain his
organization, World Vision, usually assumes there is one community in a woreda. “At

174

regional program offices and national levels, World Vision serves multiple communities
which have differences.” Abreham also explained how they consider government
appointees in the grassroots administration as community representatives, even when
they know these appointees do not always reflect community interests. “These officials
are recognized by the government. Since we follow government structures, we consider
them as representatives of the community.” He also made distinctions between the
current practices and what he believed would be the ideal situation. “There is a certain
gap. I think it would have been better if the community participates directly.”
Other NGO workers seem to consider not only government officials, but also
other community-based organizations such as farmer’s cooperatives and unions, “even if
they were established following government prescriptions” (Solomon, Oxfam), as
community representatives. Solomon argued, “Even if the government controls them
closely and used them to influence the people, we know that they have relative
independence on non-political issues.”
Oxfam field staff member, Shemsia, brought up yet another factor to consider in
identifying “the community.” According to Shemsia, international NGOs have their own
interest and when they choose a community they want to work with, they study whether
the area is “a potential.” Further explaining this concept, she said, “For example, when we
[Oxfam] first came to this area, our interest was in value chain development.” In this
case, their community would be those farmers growing coffee. She suggested that “food
security issues” might be another defining factor when NGOs pick a community. Another
Oxfam staff, Solomon, agrees with Shemsia on the cash crop-based definition of

175

community. In the context of areas of which he is in charge “communities are all sesame
farmers” in the woreda.
I would say, World Vision’s area development programs set their feet in highly
food insecure woredas of the country. For World Vision, communities are those people
who are “primary” and “secondary” beneficiaries of development programs (Head, World
Vision Ethiopia Planning Department). A grassroots-based staff member, Wondwosen,
explained, “In the language of development, the community is the target beneficiaries
(both primary and secondary) of the programs. For example, when World Vision does
[development] works, the target beneficiaries are children and their parents.” It is not
clear whether all children in an area World Vision is focusing upon are equally
benefitting from all programs. From observing how things work in the locality, I
determined there was an intentional effort to target sponsored-children11 and their parents
rather than the non-sponsored child families.
From the discourses of the NGOs one gets the sense that “the community” is a
homogenous group of people. Further looking at their programs in the localities where I
chose to conduct my field research, I came to realize Oxfam tried to empower women
whereas World Vision focused on the wellbeing of children. Ironically, community
groups had very little say in the deliberations and resultant development decisions,
especially in the case of World Vision’s “child-centered” programs.

11 According to World Vision International’s official website (www.worldvision.org),
volunteers pay $30/month and help provide a child in need with access to life-saving
basics like health, food, clean water education etc…. In return the sponsors get the
chance to personally connect with the sponsored child through letters, email and cards.

176

Is Community Participation being “Adulterated?”
The NGO workers I talked to had no doubt that community participation is a
noble ideal and a recipe for success in grassroots development. Not surprisingly, both
staffs at headquarters and in the field recite the literature of community participation
precisely. Some of them mentioned the enlightenment comes from their exposure to a
wide range of development literature and training. For instance, Solomon described
community participation as “the effort to help communities develop the feeling that they
own the outcomes of development activities and engage them in initiating ideas to
running and managing projects in the absence of NGOs.” He underlined that strategies
may vary from one organization to another. The ultimate goal, according to Solomon, is
“to enable the community to stand on its feet, own and manage development’s
undertakings.” Likewise, Simret of Oxfam argued, “The community has to be the
priority-setter, decision-maker, and the designer of the foundations of its own
development.” She further noted:
The community needs to have ownership. What I call participation is not some
nominal practices of talking about it in project narrations and reports. I think it is
the endeavor to identify what needs a community has, how best do they want to
address it, why do they want to do it that way and what kinds of changes do they
want to see in their life. I think such moves would result in sustainable changes.
The impact of development programs should be measured not by the amount of
money put into it, but by how far the community owned the works, how well they
managed it. The concept of participation includes everything from identifying and
prioritizing needs to ownership.11

177

Simret’s views attest to the existence of a thing called “nominal” community participation
at least in report and grant narrations.
World Vision staff members are not much different in their way of framing
community participation. Starting with experts at the national office, Anteneh described
the essence of community participation as “understanding communities, their needs and
facilitating conditions for them whereby they participate according to their interests and
capabilities to fill their own gaps.” This is such an interesting framing because it adds the
need for “understanding communities” to the previous descriptions. It also suggests that
the NGO’s role should be limited to “facilitating conditions” for communities so that they
willingly contribute what is within their level of expertise. According to Anteneh, “This
[way of looking at community participation] is what makes us believe the community
will carry on with started programs even if external actors stop.” For Binyam,
community participation is a rewarding process, which is worth pursuing. Despite the
rhetoric, admits Binyam, there are often no objective indicators and standards against
which we can measure whether communities have actually fully participated at all levels.
He went on to argue:
Sometimes taking part in meetings and giving labor contributions are considered
community participation. However, participation is wider than that. Why do
communities participate at all? For me, participation implies inclusiveness.
Participation is a matter of letting the owner of the development own the entire
process itself because this is a rewarding process which will guarantee the output
of the process will continue through time to benefit people who are living in a
specific community. Therefore, the concept of participation is being adulterated,

178

adulterated in the sense that the concept is externalizing the real owners of the
development itself. It is the initiators of the development who are inviting the
community at will so that they would be included. Communities are sometimes
not asked for their opinion whether they would like to participate in this or that.
Because communities are in most cases powerless. They don’t have the ability or
the choice to refuse participation. Therefore, through time, the definition of
participation, the standard of participation and the content of participation and the
level of participation itself has been dictated by the initiators of the development
projects. Sometimes it becomes a fashion, a catchword or a cliché in the
development literature or in the development academia. Those who don’t know
what participation implies talk about it and community members become a timid,
humble, powerless lookers who are there to be called upon only when the time
permits, only when the condition is conducive for the development initiators, be it
NGOs or any kind of organization that claims to support any kind of
development. So the problem here is in the first place the concept is wrongly
understood both by the recipients of the development and by those who claim to
come to the rescue of the poor communities. To conclude my comment on this
question, sometimes I feel that participation itself doesn’t exist. It is something
toward which we should aspire, one we have not achieved yet. Sometimes it
becomes not an objective reality but a goal towards which we should aspire.12
This critical reflection, among others, raised important questions of: 1) ownership
of the entire process, no matter who initiates development schemes, 2) whether or not

12 This interview was conducted in English. These are the exact words of the participant.

179

participants are asked for their desire to participate, and 3) who possesses the power to
control and decide on the meaning and nature of participation. It is ironic that the
“owner” of the outcome of development programs does not have power over the process.
Binyam suggested owning the entire process is rewarding. It is not clear in what sense.
He seems to suggest participation also implies some psychological aspects such as the
quest for recognition and dignity.
World Vision grassroots development facilitator, Tilahun, agrees with Binyam
that participation is a concept larger than how it is usually conceived. The way he frames
his argument for participation is indicative of where the locus of power resides:
Community participation is a very wide concept. Participation is development by
itself. Participation is a work done to enable communities’ own development
projects undertaken by organizations. Community participation is target groups’
participation in development in the form of ideas, materials and owning the
outcome. In the case of World Vision and any other organization, I do not believe
any development in which the community doesn’t participate will be sustainable.
Involving the community at any rate is beneficial. Involving the community in
planning, in generating, in participating in the implementation, in evaluation and
later involving them in taking over the works is development by itself.12
It sounds like communities participate at the will of the development initiators, as
Binyam pointed out earlier. In this description of the essence of participation, the framing
seems to privilege development initiators when it comes to possessing the power to make
decisions. This is very important when the field-level workers are the actual
implementers of whatever ideal policy of community participation an organization may

180

have. Consistent with this view, Wondwosen, a manager of grassroots programs, claims
that the “understanding of program goals declines as you go down to grassroots level.”
“This is the case,” according to Wondwosen, “with both government partners and World
Vision staffs.” It is important to note that there are differences even among grassroots
level development actors in their conception of participation. For example, Abreham
explained that participation includes, “enabling communities to critically analyze their
situations and come up with their own plans” of development. “Enabling communities” is
a frame different from “involving” them at the will of a certain party. The other
dimension Abreham adds to the description of community participation is that “the
community” is a heterogeneous group. “The participation can vary according to age. We
should engage children in child-focused activities and do the same for others and let them
pass through this process and help them reach the level where they can manage the
project.” In my view, this is a major departure from the discourses that commonly give
the impression that “the community” is a homogenous group of people.
There seems to be agreement among the NGO workers I interviewed that the
concept of community participation has not been received by all development
stakeholders in the exact same way. Part of the lack of clarity, according to some
participants, comes from the tricky nature of the term “participation.” For example,
Solomon thought the term is “open to different interpretations” like many other concepts
in development. He appeared to suggest there is a range of levels of participation. High-
level World Vision official, Zerihun, explained Solomon’s range of participation further:
Only because some community members aired out their opinions, some people
think they participated. On the other hand, there are situations whereby

181

communities make active involvements in the form of ideas, materials,
management, monitoring to the end and see their ideas go all the way to the last
goal.
The other source of misconception of participation, according to some
participants, emanate from the way community participation is framed. Despite the
discourse of “community ownership of outcomes of development,” Anteneh argued that
“community participation” is problematic:
It appears that everybody has grasped the concept of community participation.
When it comes to practical facilitation, you start to see different people
understood it differently. They say there is participation simply because they
called some community members to attend meetings. Only because they told the
community at the end what they did, they think there is participation. We heard
about the word participation and we talk about it. Who owns the thing? And who
invites you to participate? In my view, the participants may not own it. If they are
willing to commit to certain things, they are considered participants. If
communities are “participants” in this sense, then who is to own development? In
my view, the community should extend the call for invitation. The community
should start to demand additional skills and call upon others to come and
participate. Communities should go to the extent of engaging the government and
other actors and demanding them to do this and that for them. 13
Swearing by “Community Participation”
NGO workers believe they understand the advantages of consulting communities
on every issue of development in their locality and that they also pioneered participatory

182

development in Ethiopia. Along these lines, Simret pointed out, “There is a better
understanding about participation in the NGO sector than in other sectors.” They swear
by “community participation.” For example, Tilahun (World Vision field staff) thought,
“Community participation is the beginning of any work and any relationship.” This view
might be informed by the popular verse of the Bible, “The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Wondwosen said that they embrace community
participation because it is “true.” “It is a necessary input for any development in any
condition,” he further noted.
One of the arguments NGO workers made for the need for community
participation is that it is germane to the collectivistic lifestyle of the communities they
serve. In this regard, Simret argued, “When you see our communities, most of the social
activities are carried out in collaboration with other members of the society. That is how
our culture is. For example, if you look at funerals and weddings people organize
themselves and come out in big numbers to support.” Similarly, Tilahun posited:
I grew up on a farm. My parents are farmers. Growing up, I learned how
important it is to consult with community members. I have also seen projects
undertaken without the participation of the community fail. It is way different
when you tell me about what you want to achieve right from the beginning and
when you just embark on development work. If you are to make me like what you
do, make me trust you and ensure what you do is going to succeed, then it is a
must that I participate.14
Arguments for participation as a home-grown concept is interesting and has some
elements of truth. However, it is difficult to conclude contemporary practices of

183

community participation are necessarily the extensions of the long-standing culture of
community collaboration in Ethiopia. Simret seemed unsure of her argument when she
later said, “Whether it has its roots in our culture or knowledge passed to us from outside,
the advantages of community participation is well established in Ethiopia.”
Looking at a brief historical account of community participation in the context of
World Vision Ethiopia, Anteneh pointed out:
It takes us back to 1986. That was when it [participation] started under the name of
community-based technical program. The need for community participation
surfaced out when some development facilitators got a six-month training. It was
the time of rehabilitation and transition to development. It was believed involving
the victims of famine was a necessary, sustainable and cost-effective way. Even if
the approach got accepted by the organization and the community, other actors
considered it a waste of time and not a cost-effective mode of operation. It was
only later that it got appreciated globally [and] became a norm.15
Apparently, the very idea of community participation as we know it today is brought to
the attention of Ethiopian NGO workers through their foreign colleagues in the form of
training. It is important to note how organizational discourses of community participation
in the 1980s emphasized the idea of cost-effectiveness.
The other, and by far the most frequent, argument NGO workers made for
community participation revolves around concepts of “sense of ownership” and
“sustainability.” Almost every one of the NGO workers I interviewed explained the
disadvantages of top-down approaches. For example, Shemsia highlighted, “If you
prescribe things in a top-down manner, they may accept it because it gives them a

184

temporary benefit. But the outcome will not sustain and they do not develop a sense of
ownership.” Further explaining the dangers of not getting the consent of the community,
Anteneh had the following to say:
A lot of development works could not sustain. Sometimes communities themselves
are the cause for short service and even damage. This is because, for one thing they
don’t know enough about the projects and second, the external people do works in
a manner which is not necessarily consistent with the existing values, norms,
individual and society’s needs.16
Asked what one would see in a community that fully participated on a project,
Tilahun answered, “We would not see people that say, ‘we don’t know’, we see a
community that considers the works their own and protects them. We see projects run
well even after NGOs left the area.”
Community members are supposed to develop “the sense of ownership” because of
the emotional attachment they develop as they pass through the process of participation,
contributing ideas and influencing decisions. The NGO workers often do not make
distinctions between the types of participation that helps community members develop a
sense of ownership from those “participatory approaches” that do not. Intentionally or
unintentionally, they seemed to suggest every approach to development, which claims to
be “participatory,” is rewarding to the community.
Asked if they embrace community participation because it is politically correct,
most of the participants answered “no” and tried to show why they firmly believe in the
nobility of this approach to development. Two or three participants suggested the
possibility of including participation without believing in it. For example, Anteneh

185

explained, “It is possible that parties who say they engage communities may not believe
in participation. They say it because it is considered politically right or because others
require us to reflect that. But, it is usually hard to discern the true position of people on
this.” The reason for not having authentic commitment for participation, according to
Wondwosen, may also come from lack of full understanding of the concept and also from
evoking participation to further their own interests.
Participants also talked about how important it is for NGOs to empower
communities before they leave (Abreham, Zerihun). According to Zerihun, NGOs and
other civil organizations stay in an area for a limited time. He went on to explain:
Primarily it is the community that carries on development. And, it is not believed
communities sustain life or generations simply because of external support.
Therefore, we want communities to participate as the development programs need
to go on. This, for one thing, helps us conduct the development work [with]
minimum cost. Secondly, things will be more sound and better facilitated when
community members are in charge of the program management. Third, when the
NGOs leave, the community will proceed with the innovations the NGOs brought.
That is why the participation and empowerment of the community becomes
desirable.17
Zerihun also mentioned that donors are concerned about what happens to projects when
they quit funding them. They demand that NGO program planners have “phase out
strategies.” As a consequence, donors push the community participation agenda.
NGO Workers’ Description of Community Participation Practices in Ethiopia

186

The preceding sections presented NGO workers’ views on the concept of
community and the rationale for community participation. In the following sections, I
have summarized their assessment of the community participation practices in Ethiopia in
general and their experiences with the localities in which they work in particular. First, I
present the voices of Oxfam staffs and then World Vision staffs’views will follow.
Solomon of the Oxfam UK Ethiopia office staff put the organizational stakes in
community participation in three broad categories. The first group comprises mainly such
institutions as governments that have “political motives” and which use participation as
“a tool to mobilize communities” and make them serve government interests. He
explained “participation” could be used to legitimize the government’s act of soliciting
political loyalty and contributions in the form of labor, materials and money. This
suggests that the government’s interest may not necessarily reflect the best interest of
communities. In fact, this is a possible scenario for non-democracies. According to
Solomon, the second group that promotes community participation consists of civil
society organizations. In engaging communities, he explained, “I don’t believe most of
these organizations have a goal larger than ensuring sustainability of projects built using
donor money.” As a senior person who served in three international NGOs including
Oxfam and World Vision, he looked back to how they handled community participation
and reflected:
NGOs that are implementing programs locally sometimes, knowingly or
unknowingly, enact participation in a manner that totally contradicts with its
original spirit. I can cite examples. If you take one of the organizations [he
mentioned the name] I worked with in the past, mostly we conceived ideas, we

187

wrote plans, and wanted the community to endorse them. We took care of
assessment and other stuff and reported to donors there was full community
participation.18
Solomon suggested pseudo participatory practice is a thing of the past, at least from his
personal point of view. By implication, through time and working for various NGOs, he
got a chance to educate himself. He indicated yet another organization he worked for in
the past did an exemplary job of community participation. Solomon argued such
organizations, even if few in number, employed a rights-based and good governance-
focused approach to development. These organizations, according to Solomon, consider
communities as rightful parties. “Communities participate all the way from clicking the
very first idea to the follow up and taking over responsibility and running projects when
the NGO leaves.” These are the types of organizations that Solomon put in the third
category. He further argued that these types of organizations:
Create awareness to communities and encourage them to claim their rights on
crucial political issues. This enables participations to be real. There is absolute
belief in community’s ability to be a part of a development program, right from
the beginning to the end. The communities involve in everything including
materials purchasing and negotiating with the local government to get land for
projects such as school construction. Organizations stand aside and see things
don’t go off track because of lack of experience and expertise. They limit their
participation in providing necessary, limited finance and filling knowledge gap.19
In this discourse, we notice that communities are moved to the center, while experts
working for NGOs seemed to stand in the periphery and wait until their assistance is

188

sought by the community. This is, obviously, diametrically opposite of the dominant
discourses, which bring organizations to the center and make the community look like it
is helplessly waiting outside to be invited in by organizations.
Another Oxfam staff member, Simret, described the steps her organization
followed to engage local coffee farmers in enhancing the quality of organic coffee to
meet world standards, thereby raising their income. She said they started by conducting
an assessment of opportunities and challenges. The assessment included holding
discussions with local government staffs and community members such as leaders of
coffee unions. One of the challenges, according to Simret, was the “knowledge gap.”
Oxfam helped launch a “functional adult literacy program” with a curriculum that
integrated basic reading and writing skills with quality coffee production. Simret
reported, “When this project went operational, we saw a significant change. There has
been regular discussions between stakeholders. This shows, our working closely with and
engaging the community has paid off.” Simert described what Oxfam has been able to
promote:
We promote dialogues. We encourage them [communities] to establish forums at
woreda, zonal and regional levels and grassroots market groups. Significant
numbers of women are included in the discussions at all levels of the value chain
starting from working the soil. Women are still not getting a fair share of the
benefits. Some resistances surfaced during discussions. Some didn’t believe taking
part in credit and saving associations is right for the women. Meetings and
discussions helped resolve such tensions. Then we helped them see the

189

opportunities available to them. As we play more facilitation roles, they start to
open up and come to the right track.20
From this description, we can see that dialogues do not necessarily result in consensus.
They might get participants into thorny areas and even conflicts. However, the
development process would be healthier when the tensions are allowed to come out. In
this particular case, a great majority of the women and, of course, their partners were
hesitant about saving money and getting dividends as their Muslim faith does not permit
such practices.
Overall, Oxfam staff from headquarters to field believed their organization works
very closely with communities. Shemsia, a member of the Oxfam grassroots staff, shared
the views of her organization’s headquarters staff in regard to community participation
practices:
In this specific area, the [coffee] union, which is considered representative of the
community, is our closest ally. There are primary associations’ representatives
under the union. They participate from project design to monitoring. Also the
donor and implementing organizations13 take part during project design. We
implement projects together. Therefore, I think the communities have a certain
amount of participation.21
As she later indicated, community participation is minimal when it comes to policy
issues. “Policy level discussions include Oxfam, the union and necessary government
parties. The changes are communicated to the larger community down the line.” The

13 Sometimes Oxfam contracts out some work like the adult literacy program to local
implementing organizations such as Adult and Non Formal Education Association in
Ethiopia (ANFEAE).

190

impression I got from her description is that she thinks deliberations on policy issues
require some kind of expertise.
As far as Oxfam is concerned, the bottom line, according to Solomon,
“philosophically, there is an uncompromised [positive] stand on participation,” however,
the practice may vary. One variation, he argued, comes from whether the intervention is
humanitarian or development per se. He reported life saving rather than participation is
the goal in the case of humanitarian intervention, whereas they play a “facilitative role” in
their value chain development program to ensure participation of the farmers. Some of
the NGO workers I interviewed preferred to resort to principles even when asked to
comment on the actual practices of public deliberations in their organizations. In the next
sub-section, we see that community participation experiences of World Vision are not
much different from that of Oxfam.
Moving on to World Vision, most of the staff I interviewed believed their
organization, by and large, engages “partners” in all its grassroots development work.
They argued that there is participation at all stages of the project cycle because “the
[organization’s] guideline orders” them to involve communities (Zerihun). Zerihun
further explained:
We are doing things as per the requirements of the guideline. When we do plans,
we don’t include anything the community doesn’t want. However we may not
have enough resources enough to be able to address all their needs. In that case,
they are made to prioritize and agree on what things to include in plans. They
participate at every stage. There is a good tradition of information exchange. We
sit down with them and discuss implementation of programs. We evaluate our

191

projects with the community twice—the first one is midterm evaluation and the
second one is terminal.22
According to Zrihun there is an optimal level of community participation in the
areas in which World Vision works in Ethiopia. The first thing World Vision staffs
reportedly do is contact “partners” which are groups organized by the government or
other community-based cultural units. Then they “reach the community through them”
(Zerihun). Zerihun indicated they strengthen existing groups and “organize them in new
groups and make them discuss thematic issues such as HIV/AIDS.” He also reported that
the community would “bring their own agenda and discuss them.” Wondwosen agrees
with other study participants; “there is a significant amount of [community] participation
during planning and targeting,” which he claims to be “better than what we can see with
other NGOs.” Next, according to his ranking, is participation in the form of “labor and
material.” He thought, “World Vision is weak when it comes to involving communities in
monitoring and evaluation.” If done at all, according to Wondwosen, it is usually taken
care of by World Vision and government experts. Field office level worker, Abrehm,
thought that they failed to reach an “optimal” level of community achievement. He
explained, “They participate in bringing their challenges to our attention and indicating
what needs to be done for them. But, still, I don’t think we are fully participating with the
community. I have a feeling we are doing less than what is expected of us.”
The dominant view of the World Vision staff is that community members actively
participate in contributing money, material and labor, which usually add up to ten per
cent of a project’s cost. It is not clear whether these are imposed on communities or they
do them voluntarily. Abreham explained:

192

In the context of our ADP [Area Development Program], they [the community]
contribute up to 5%. For example, out of what it would cost us to construct a
secondary school in five years, 5-7% of the cost is the share of the community.
There is a trend of taking part in labor – when we do water projects. But, there are
challenges with the behavior of the community. They don’t organize themselves.
They don’t take initiatives. Sometimes, the woreda [government] experts need to
come down and get them [to] work. They should have taken the initiative to do
things as per the frames we provide them. I think there has to be improvement in
this regard.23
The involvement of communities in “policy issues” was seemingly limited
because the government policy “is not conducive for international NGOs to directly
participate in certain areas” (Zerihun). Intentionally or otherwise, the argument for lack
of community participation in policy formulation is flawed. It has nothing to do with the
restriction the Ethiopian Legislation put on international NGOs not to directly get
involved in “certain areas,” which include human rights and other political issues such as
voter education. Wondwosen admits, “I could not say there has been community
participation on policy deliberations. I have not seen one.” Likewise, Abreham reported,
“World Vision does the policies. So far, I haven’t seen the community participating in this
regard.” Abreham indicated policies are crafted at “regional, national and [international]
partnership office levels.” Wondwosen puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the
government. He argued that the “main owner” of the development process–the
government–usually prioritizes timely political issues on the development agenda. In that
case, communities are forced to shift focus to the thing of the moment advanced by the

193

government. Apparently, they have time to participate in planning, targeting and making
money and labor contributions, but have no time for conceptual level deliberations on the
things that matter to them. There seems to be a consistent and inherent view that
community members are unqualified for policy discussion. In addition, people prefer to
stay away from policy discussions as such dialogues are viewed as “political” and thus
the province of the government.
Staff members, who thought there was community participation, cited community
“commenting” on policies already formulated as examples of community participation
(Bayush; Tilahun). According to Tilahun, “Policies come and are commented on. Mostly
the policies are well formulated. Still the comments of the community will be included.”
Another field worker, Tilahun believed there are situations, even if limited, where
community members’ ideas were taken seriously by the organization. He argued, “I have
seen when a five-year document was changed to accommodate community suggestions.
There are instances where ideas came from the grassroots level got accepted at higher
levels.” He seemed to contradict himself when he later said, “Their participation is not
much when it comes to initiating development ideas. But they can comment on what is
proposed.” World Vision community worker Bayush remembered, “Even before I joined
World Vision, World Vision had a plan to build a school. The community said they
wanted water first and the plan was changed.” I wondered how the plan was originally
formulated if the community were able only to make some changes. Despite the claims of
“working closely” with the community, the discourses of NGO workers tend to draw a
different and more complex picture. The responses of both the community members and

194

World Vision staff did not speak to the permeability of the boundary between them and
community consensus building.
Donors and the Local Government: Partners and Challenges
NGO participants discussed both the opportunities and challenges for community
participation in Ethiopia. Simret (Oxfam) reported that her organization has tried to put in
place basic principles and conditions for participation (e.g., commitment expressed in
policies). She thought their achievements in that regard are encouraging. However, she
acknowledged the fact that there are some gaps in the implementing of policies. “For
example, we didn’t get a chance to engage all government structures at the woreda level
because of various reasons.” She also admitted they did not work very closely with
women’s associations. “We spent most of our time working with the [coffee] union.”
Shemsia agrees with Simret that Oxfam’s desire to engage the community is
apparent. She is appreciative of the level of collaboration between them and their partners
(especially given the short life of the project in the area). Yet, Shemsia explained that
situations on the ground are far from perfect, despite the organizational stance stipulated
in key documents. Among the challenges she identified, the one that stands out is
shortage of manpower. She is the only Oxfam staff member stationed in the area. Other
experts occasionally make brief visits from headquarters for meetings and training. To
cope with this situation, the organization reportedly reaches the community through the
union, associations and government development facilitators. Shemsia indicated, “More
direct contact with the community would create better understanding, thus earning us
better trust. I understand getting the voices of the community through representatives
might hide real concerns and issues from our sight.” Simret does not necessarily see the

195

lack of personnel as a challenge. For her, it is a strategic choice the organization has
made. She argued, “You can’t reach all villagers with Oxfam staffs, no matter how many
you have there. If NGOs are to bring about any change, they should develop grassroots
level capacity. It is much better to empower communities and develop leaders locally.”
Like Simret, Shemsia would have preferred the participation of women to be
better than what it is at the moment. She observed, “The men are empowered
economically and socially. They can express their ideas openly. The women are not yet
there. The start is good. But I think there is more work to do. They have not started to
fully utilize their potential.”
NGO participants from World Vision highlighted the amicable relationships they
had forged with communities over their 20-year presence in the area, as an opportunity
for community participation (Anteneh; Wondwosen). They also thought World Vision
understood community interests because of its experience and the rigorous assessment
processes they go through before embarking on projects. Some of the staff considered
personnel on the ground (both World Vision’s community workers and government
development facilitators) as assets necessary to trigger community participation. For
example, Wondwosen mentioned that the government assigns agriculture and health
sector junior experts. These experts together with development committees established by
World Vision (e.g., child wellbeing committee) make grassroots deliberations possible.
Wondwosen further explained, “We use those grassroots structures a lot. We select direct
beneficiaries of projects with them. We also present our plans to them before

196

implementing them.” Similarly, Anteneh sees community structures such as one-to-five
groups14 as “resources.”
Commenting on the nature of the community in Adama woreda, Tilahun indicated
they are close to the major urban center of Adama and, hence, could respond to
development initiatives positively and quickly. “Since they live in the Rift Valley, they
lived most of their time under moisture stress. They have been struggling as a result of
crop failure. So they appreciate any support NGOs may extend.”
According to participants, fostering communities’ positive attitudes toward
development and favorable conditions for participation are not without challenges. One
such challenge is that NGO development practitioners either do not have “the skills
necessary to make participation” (Anteneh) or they lack a “commitment” to it (Abreham).
Participants agree there are differences among staff members when it comes to
knowledge of the culture and norms of the community. Abreham argued, “Unless one is
able to identify how things work [within] the community, what cultural practices are
holding them back and what opportunities are there, it is very difficult to engage them in
helpful conversations.” In addition to differences in the skills and passion of individual
staffs, Wondwosen pointed out the high staff turnover is a problem for the continuation
of participatory processes. “Staffs don’t stay here long enough to see initiatives take root.
People get transferred by the time they start to know the community better.”

14 One-to-five groups are the smallest community structures within a group of five
households in a neighborhood that is monitored/coordinated by one household head
among them. Some critics think the Ethiopian government created these structures in the
years following the contested 2005 elections for political control while others see these
groups as good ways to reach grassroots communities and coordinate them for the
development of their neighborhood.

197

Though donors make grassroots development possible in Ethiopia, their
requirements put pressure on NGO implementation practices. Anteneh explained, “We
[World Vision] work with the community. But in most cases, [NGOs] may do some
activities only to meet donor demands. It is difficult if you want to see a measurable
community participation.” Anteneh further explained how donors could put pressure on
program implementing NGOs. “If there is firm organizational stand and if you do
facilitation in a non-donor-driven, non-budget-driven way and give it time, whatever time
it takes, skills will change.” According to Anteneh:
There is tension here. There is a need for development on the one hand. There is
also a need to use resources and report to donors in time. It is difficult to make the
fast outcomes sustainable because we need to ask how long it takes the society to
understand new ideas. Sometimes, it might take ten years. Sometimes it takes five
years. They may have confusions about the thing we take to them. When we ask
them to let go the old habits and adopt the new ideas, they may find it
challenging. In my view, working with the community and teaching them
gradually is the best way to go about it.24
NGO workers indicated an apparent tension between donor reporting
requirements and the long time it takes to start to see any meaningful change in
communities. This tension appears to have led NGOs to do “development” too quickly
and produce reports that please their donors.
Participants emphasized that not all donors are the same. Most of them are there,
“not to just donate” (Binyam). They have their own motives. According to Binyam,
“They are not absolutely free from the inspection of others.” The sources of funding

198

could be governments, UN agencies, the World Bank and other big agencies. These
agencies, according to Binyam, have their own requirements, regulations and standards
put in place to monitor all kinds of societies and charities. Binyam argued:
NGOs are attached to multiregional corporations, which may have a kind of
political interest. Some donors do it out of religious commitment. Take for
example the Vatican agencies like Kuwait Development Fund. Donors are
actually diverse. They have the criteria on the basis of which they provide
funding. They also set the criteria for mode of operation. They set the criteria for
mode of reporting. Some of these criteria don’t tally with the objective reality that
we see in the NGO operation areas. Do they have vested interest or not this
question is very important because, there is financial transaction between donors
and NGOs. So, within this sense whether we like it or not the concept of
participation becomes [a] political issue. Any NGO that receives funds from any
specific donor is not free from the ideology or political stand of the donors.
On the community side, there are some reported challenges for participation.
These, according to participants include frustrations with repeated natural disasters and
resistance to new development initiatives (Abreham), lack of coordination and
consistency of effort. NGO staffs give to local government the responsibility to
coordinate contributions and deal with duplication of effort. They also hold the
government accountable for narrowing the sphere of deliberations and for focusing on
“timely” political issues like elections and fertilizer debt collections. Wondwosen
indicated, “In principle, the government claims to be open for grassroots discussions.
When it comes to practical situations, they are very skeptical. You are free to talk as long

199

as the idea is [in] line with government interest.” He mentioned the challenges with
dealing with particularly issues of rights (e.g., child rights).
Free Deliberative Spaces for NGOs to Engage Communities?
Whereas both Oxfam and World Vision have internal organizational structures,
they recognize government structures and work through them to reach grassroots
communities. The Oxfam field officer mainly works through the coffee union and
associations (including women’s associations) to reach out to individual farmers. World
Vision has a community worker in each kebele. In addition they have set up committees
(i.e. child committee, HIV/AIDS committee). Still they work in harmony with the
government structure.
Simret sees the government structures as more of a positive development. No
matter what the intent of the government was, she thought these structures could be used
to mobilize the government and create awareness. “If used properly,” Simret argued, “the
structures will provide more facilitating conditions. As long as there is an enabling
environment, NGOs can use the structures to engage communities and promote
development interventions.” Another Oxfam staff member, Solomon, thought
community-based organizations have autonomy, which is enough for them to engage
communities on “economic development.” He further explained things get more complex
when it comes to political issues such as elections. However, drawing the line between
economic and political issues is not always easy.
Solomon observed that the culture of meetings in its modern sense has developed
over the last three decades owing to the government’s socialist-orientation. However, he

200

noted, “How far the forums were open and who sets the agenda and who controls the
direction of the discussions remains dubious.”
World Vision staffs had mixed feelings about the nature of deliberative spaces at
the grassroots level. For example, Binyam indicated that the government has already
organized communities from village level up to the district level. He argued, “It takes a
lot of time to persuade” the local government bodies to say “yes” to World Vision staff’s
desire to reach out to the community. The success of the persuasive effort, according to
Wondwosen, also depends on individual government officials’ level of understanding of
the process of development. For Zerihun, the issue of space for development facilitation
goes beyond administrative levels. He thought the policy [NGO legislation] makes the
space of operation limited especially for international NGOs. Zerihun talked about his
organization as having been creative enough in using the limited spaces (e.g., by working
with and through partners including community-based organizations (CBOs) and
government offices). Further strengthening Zerihun’s views, Wondwosen argued:
The NGOs are here to provide an additional hand to the government in promoting
development. If the government is able to create [a] conducive policy atmosphere
and engage its partners better, I think it is possible to do much better things.
Mostly the practice in our country is that the government prioritizes its political
interest. Development usually follows the political heat. The current NGOs law is
meant to control NGOs activities and it is currently going into force. If the
development agenda is believed to be in conflict with the political interest, the
government stops it. Such things pose a challenge to development.25

201

We can infer from this description that the space for public deliberations widens
or narrows depending on the issue to be discussed. Issues that are of less interest to the
government have minimal chance to be discussed publicly. It may not be always possible
to make clear boundaries between purely economic and purely political issues as these
two often overlap. In principle, deliberations should be open and be allowed to go in any
direction where the root causes and solutions of the development challenge lie.
Wondwosen cited advocating for child rights as one area his organization wants to
engage in. However, the government has reportedly made it clear this responsibility
should be left to the government. Restrictions on the issues to be discussed and how far
the discussions can go narrow the space for deliberation.
Several other World Vision staff members believed government skepticism of
NGOs grassroots acts does not make the situation all bleak. Anteneh posited, “We have
worked with the community even during the time of communism.” He wondered, “If we
don’t use either the government structures or indigenous ones, are we going to create
totally new ones?” He thought the one-to-five structures could still be used. What
matters, according to Anteneh, is “what packages and agenda we take to those five
households.” Similarly, Woreda and kebele level World Vision staffs reported using
creative approaches to go around the rule and pass messages to community members. For
example, Bayush talked about how government officials sometimes do not mind allowing
them to gather in communities because they have interest in the resources her
organization brings. She also explained that she would call opinion leaders in the
community to her office and would tell them important information. According to
Bayush, the trust staffs and the organization built over the years and social relationships

202

with the officials had been helpful. She indicated, “Some of the kebele officials are past,
and may be present, beneficiaries of World Vision projects. So, they are usually
cooperative.”
Tilahun (World Vision) suggested, however, that the presence of the
government’s grassroots personnel and structures might have its own advantages:
At the kebele level, we have one development worker. The government has three
development center workers: one agronomy, one natural resources and one animal
health expert. They have two or three health extension workers at each kebele.
Therefore, they have a better advantage of knowing and reaching the community.
Whether we like it or not, working with them becomes imperative. We make sure
they get our ideas right at office-level meetings with these personnel. The most
important discussions are made at office, both at the woreda and kebele, levels. So
we don’t run to the community even if we had the freedom to do so. First, we
discuss issues at the woreda level and reach agreement that our staffs would work
together at the kebele level.26
According to Tilahun, the first thing they do is share whatever information they
have with the kebele office. This might mostly mean just writing a short letter and
indicating that they want to pass such and such information to the community on a certain
day. Mainly, it is the kebele chairperson who is responsible for coordinating all
government workers, community representatives and the World Vision community
worker (usually for explanation). Tilahun noted, “They have one or two such meetings
every week. We exploit such opportunities to pass on related messages we may have.”

203

The Voices of Ethiopian Government Officials and Experts
The community members’ descriptions of development and the role of NGOs are
largely shared by the government officials and the experts I interviewed. For instance, a
Limmu Seqqa district official, Mr. Jibril, considers NGO’s “investment” in his area as
remarkable “support,” which “the people have accepted.” He explained, “We talk to the
people regularly. For the most part, Oxfam worked on building the [coffee] union’s
capacity. The union has been working with its member associations and our district’s
office. People are happy about this.” Tolosa, another local government official, supports
Jibril’s ideas:
Oxfam has been working in our woreda [the smallest local government unit] as a
development ally. It has made a great deal of contributions to us. It has done a
meaningful job especially in unemployment reduction and helping in furthering
development initiatives of the government. For example, if we see Derra and
Seqqa localities, Oxfam is providing adult literacy education for women. The
women are also being trained on how to solve the challenges they have based on
objective realities of their locality.27
Government officials from Adama locality described development and NGOs
roles in similar ways. For example, Teshome (male, 52) described what World Vision
does in the woreda he is in charge of as follows:
World Vision does many types of community development works. For example,
the works they do in collaboration with my office include water harvesting since
the area is one of the rain-deficit parts of the county. It [World Vision] encourages
farmers to engage in fruits and vegetable production. In addition, they handout

204

water pumps to some farmers. We distribute those together. We also give
training.28
Unlike community members’ descriptions, we can hear in these interviews some
sense of collaboration of ideas as opposed to just labor and materials. It is important to
note the use of pronoun “we” in place of the commonly used “they” referring to the
NGOs. Explaining his personal experience with World Vision’s development work,
agriculture expert, Dereje (male, 35) says, “Since I came here, I have been working with
them technically owing to my expertise.” He has taken part in occasional monitoring and
evaluation of World Vision’s projects for the local government. He had the chance to
closely observe all sectors of World Vision’s undertakings including “water, health,
education, children and youth-related activities, agriculture.” Along this line, Beyene,
another government-hired expert who has acquainted with World Vision since 1998,
elaborates:
World Vision is an aid organization. The first thing they do is finding connecting
sponsors for children from destitute families. They do development works mostly
in agriculture, health, education sectors. Especially in the agriculture sector, there
was a huge problem of animal health. Lack of health service for the animals was
the number one problem. Since I came here, we have built four animal health
clinics in rural villages. There were three such clinics formerly constructed and
equipped by World Vision. Government also constructed three clinics taking the
total number of clinics to ten. Not only these, they have done a lot of works in the
crop production sector. They worked in 11 kebeles (villages) which have been

205

most affected by famine. Apart from humanitarian help, they were engaged on
rehabilitation works such as supply of seeds, tools and cows.29
Notwithstanding the life saving and development works World Vision does, there are a
few government officials who are skeptical of the mission of this organization. For
instance, Beyene is of the opinion that “World Vision claims to do development.
However, there are situations where it has a religious mission behind the scene. They
don’t show all their policies to the society quite often except that they present their five-
year plans.”
A federal government official I interviewed explains how the Ethiopian
government perceives NGOs and their role in development. According to Hassen,
development is primarily the business of the Ethiopian people and government. However,
due to the large magnitude of unattended needs, NGOs are welcome to “fill the gap”
identified by the country. As he explains it, there are specific tasks foreign NGOs15 could
and could not do as stipulated in the Charities and Societies Legislation the Ethiopian
Parliament passed in 2009:
The proclamation has set apart development and democratization. There was no
law that separated the two. Development work meant only focusing on
interventions during, for example, flood, natural calamities and the likes. But
now, in addition to those, they can do expanding education, health coverage
expansion, infrastructure expansion, etc. The legislation puts no restrictions on
organizations that would like to do such activities. They can generate funding

15 According to Article 2, sub-article 4 of the Ethiopian Charities and Societies
Proclamation No. 621/2009, “foreign charities” are those charities that are formed under
the laws of foreign countries or which consist of members who are foreign nationals or
are controlled by foreign national or receive funds from foreign sources.

206

from foreign sources and function within the legal frameworks of the country.
These are what we call development. They can’t do democratization and human
rights with the money secured from foreign sources. These are areas that need to
be left aside for the society. These belong to the people. These should come from
within the people. Thus, the country can take of democratization works
mobilizing its own resources and in coordination with other areas of national
interest. Any recipient of foreign funding always has the responsibility of
reporting to the donors. In that case, they serve the interest of the donor
community, not the local communities they claim to serve. They will be required
to do duties assigned by the donors. Therefore, in the interest of sovereignty, the
legislation requires democratization be done with local resources.30
When asked about how the new legislation might have affected the activities of
NGOs, Hassen explained, “Organizations formerly mixing up activities started to make
their identities clear.” He also noted that many NGOs, which had interest in human rights
and advocacy, “switched focus and came to development.” According to Hassen, “There
are some [NGOs] that decided to raise funds from within the country and pursue
democratization and human development works they had started.”
Expertise versus Indigenous Knowledge: Integration and Tensions
A major tension I investigated in this study is the one between expertise and
indigenous knowledge. Expert voices represent the views of professional, college-
educated NGO workers who have been trained in various disciplines. These staffs are
exposed to widely circulated development discourses. On the other hand, what I call
indigenous knowledge is community understanding gained from long-lived, customary

207

and creative practices. It is on the basis of such local knowledge that communities make
decisions on important things like agriculture, heath and the like.
The community members I interviewed did not often see themselves as
knowledgeable. They were usually reluctant to articulate their understanding of how their
life could change for the better. They left finding innovative ideas largely to government
and NGO experts. For example, Alemu (male crop farmer, 62) indicated they do not try
to “advise” the NGO workers. He wondered, “What can we advise them? What for? They
are educated. We ask questions and they answer. Other than that, we don’t advise them.
Do they accept if at all we advise them?” Several other participants shared this view
(Desta; Sebokka).
Interviewed community members seemed comfortable articulating their needs and
prioritizing them. For instance, Alemitu (female, 32) reported sitting in meetings where
they tell World Vision staff members, “This person has challenges. He needs aid.” She
explained, “We identify those who need help and present this information to them [World
Vision].” Similarly, Saba (female, 49) explained, “Last time they [Oxfam staffs] came
with the white men and asked us what we need. We told them we would be happy if we
could obtain a loan without interest.” It does not mean that all needs put forth by the
community were considered by NGOs. In this regard, Kedir (male, 40) reported:
The problem with World Vision is that they take whoever they want and don’t
take some other kids on the grounds that their age is not right [for the sponsorship
program]. We select those in dire need and present this to them. They tell us “no.”
They don’t give us sufficient reasons. They tell us “wait, wait, wait” for
everything. When we ask them, “Why?” They don’t explain. Even if they have

208

taken photos of some kids, they tell us, only a few get accepted by the people
[sponsors] abroad. We accept that because we think that is true. It would have
been better if they identified those households, which have no capacity to provide
for their family.31
World Vision raises most of the money for community services from child
sponsorship programs. Community members consider sponsorship a great opportunity.
This is because some of, if not all, the organization’s activities target sponsored children
and their families.
I did not see instances of individual farmers presenting themselves as having
knowledge they can bring to the table for the sake of discussion and negotiation. They
preferred to portray themselves as people who are responsive to expert advice.
Community research participants did report some signs of push back. For instance, Dinke
(female, 35) indicated, “If we do not like what they suggest, we tell them it doesn’t work
for our area or it doesn’t help us.” Asked if World Vision staffs agree to change plans as
per community suggestions, Dinke said, “Sometimes they do.” Some participants seemed
to know that, in principle, they have the right to resist NGO workers’ ideas. Along these
lines, Sebboka (male, 38) pointed out:
There are development ideas that come from higher bodies. The community could
say, “No, this is not helpful to us. We know what works for we have lived in the
area for 25, 50 or 30 years. We don’t accept this.” Actually, they don’t bring to us
things that do not work. They are educated people. They know what is beneficial
to us. Even though not educated, the community also knows. They [the
community members] have the right to say. “No. We don’t accept.”32

209

However, the practice, as we can see here, emphasized the “experts know
everything” discourse. When I asked Sebokka if he had witnessed situations where the
community rejected experts’ ideas, he replied the community usually accepts because
“they explain stuff so well.”
The community voice is noticeably stronger when the community is more
organized. Leaders of the coffee union and the women’s credit association seem to have a
better understanding of how to make their voice matter. For instance, Saba explained the
process of how her association came to own the grain mill. “They called me for a meeting
at Jimma town and asked me about the challenges of the association.” She told them her
association “would be much stronger if they [Oxfam] helped sponsor a project.” Then,
they negotiated on the type of the project. Saba reported that she demanded a “grains
shop.” Oxfam staff suggested, “How about a grains mill?” Saba thought “that is a good
idea.” The two parties finally talked about the advantages and challenges of putting up a
grain mill in Saba’s locality (Seqqa town).
I asked Limmu Enaria Coffee Union leader, Fikadu, if member voices were
properly considered when they plan and run the partnership project with Oxfam. He
replied, “We propose activities together with the corresponding budget requirement. We
discuss the proposal. We either increase or leave out things. But usually, we initiate the
plans.” He also explained that he gets the list of activities from the annual plan, which has
been discussed and endorsed by the general assembly. Fikadu believed the individual
farmer’s voice was represented in the general assembly, which is formed by
representatives of coffee union’s member associations. According to Fikadu, their interest
was not far from Oxfam’s for “they [Oxfam] got most of the information from us when

210

they did the project design.” When there were differences between the two parties, they
negotiated. Along these lines, Fikadu had the following to say:
They [Oxfam] want to get some activities done. As well, there are things we want.
In my view, mostly our interests get taken care of. For example, they want to
work primarily on women. When we plan activities, they want us to involve
women. But that is not their interest alone. It is something we support. So we do
such things without feeling the pressure. Our union has its own regulations. They
fit into our annual activity plans. If they require something out of our plan, we do
not accept.33
Obviously, grassroots organizations are more influential than individual
community members. This is so partly because their leaders are mostly drawn from the
better-educated members of the community. For example, Fikadu has some college
education. This coupled with the legitimacy he gets as a leader of the largest coffee
growers association gave him the rhetorical power to challenge the views of NGO and
government experts. At one point he suggested, “It would be better if Oxfam had
assigned – staffs who really understand what we do here.” This is a major departure from
an “experts are all-knowing” narrative.
Fikadu thought NGO-union collaboration is the better way to get at the root
causes of development challenges. He argued, “Farmers openly tell everything to us
rather than the government and NGOs.” NGO planning that does not include consulting
with grassroots organizations such as the coffee union is “an exercise in futility” for those
projects “could not be sustainable.”

211

Usually the experts and community members come together during general public
(large group) and small group meetings (e.g., representatives and/or leaders of various
communities and grassroots organizations). In addition to meetings, experts get their
ideas across using training they organize on various topics of interest. Usually, the better-
educated and more influential members of the community attend the training sessions.
For example, Ibrahim (male, 42) was selected as one of the model farmers and attended a
two-day training session on producing better quality coffee. Experts from Oxfam and the
government office of agriculture reportedly offered the training.
In the context of this study, government employees and NGO staff members
represent the voice of the expert. As shown in my field observation reports, these two
parties spoke the language of science and seemed to understand each other very well. The
experts were the major sources of knowledge and hence dominated discussions in
meetings with community members. When interviewing experts, I asked questions like:
Who usually chairs meetings? Who speaks longer in meetings? Who explains
development challenges and corresponding solutions, when they meet with community
members? For example, Teshome (male, 52) is an agricultural expert with the local
government office. In his current position he has worked with grassroots communities in
collaboration with World Vision for seven years. Regarding his experiences of expert-
community joint meetings, he had the following to say:
Sometimes when we offer training and conduct discussions on issues that require
community participation such as planning, we lead the discussions. I mean those
who oversee the implementation of the plans. However, every now and then, we
give them [community members] responsibilities. For example, we tell them to

212

select target beneficiaries. They select, without our involvement and send us the
list. They discuss, select and send us – the reasons why they picked those people.
So the level [of participation] depends on the agenda and our desire. If it is
planning, we help them. They can do beneficiary selection by themselves.34
Beyond the topic of discussion, the facilitation skills of the chairperson matters. A
fellow expert, Beyene, suggested it normally takes a while before the farmers start to
speak. It is customary that they want to know the person(s) they are speaking to before
they open up. Beyene argued, “We need to befriend the farmers and encourage them to
share their views.” Beyene showed he shared the dominant perception about the
community’s level of understanding when he said, “Still most of them don’t speak when
they meet with professionals. Because issues that require knowledge might be raised.
And the farmers have common knowledge, but don’t know things that require
knowledge.” It is very interesting to note what the experts refer to as “knowledge” is
modern knowledge, which can be proven through use of scientific methods. It is apparent
that several years of Ethiopian discourses about education and the educated not only
helped privilege modern education, but also diminished the status of indigenous
knowledge. A very common expression in Ethiopia that contributed to discourses of
“educated people are knowledgeable” is “yetemare yigdelegn.” It literally translates as
“let an educated person kill me.” The expression implies even the worst thing as killing a
person is better executed by an educated person.
Yet another expert (Dereje, 35) argued the whole idea of “extension works”
revolved around “convincing farmers to adopt new technology.” He noted, “I don’t know
of extension tools designed based on local knowledge. If the local knowledge was that

213

important we don’t even need the extension work.” The experts noted they do not impose
innovations on the farmers. Rather they reportedly use various techniques of persuasion.
Tariku argued, “We do demonstrations at the FTC [farmers training center] and get some
model farmers to adopt them. Gradually, the community accepts.” Experts commonly
reported instances of community members expressing concerns about and resisting the
adoption of new technologies.
The government-employed experts and the NGO workers most often shared the
same perspective. However, the NGO staffs appeared to be more cognizant of the power
of indigenous knowledge. They also had faith in the ability of community members to
actively take part in discussions with experts. Such belief comes, according to Shemsiya
(Oxfam), from the “community-centered” principle they follow. She admitted, “It is
possible for the experts to dominate,” when we bring together people with various kinds
of individual differences, “ranging from farmers to experts.” Still, she argued her
organization’s “inclusiveness” gives voice to the “otherwise voiceless community
members, mainly women.” She seemed to promote a kind of affirmative action in her
argument. According to Shemsiya, Oxfam and the coffee union agree in advance on an
agenda and on which one of them should chair a meeting before facing the larger crowd.
She also insisted their “adult literacy program” could empower communities and help
narrow the literacy gap in the long run. In the meantime, Oxfam, together with its local
partner organization (ANFEE), is using the literacy program as a venue to push new
innovations. In her argument, Shemsiya singled out policy issues as an aspect of the
development cycle where a community’s participation is minimal. According to her, most
policy formulation or policy amendment cases are taken care of by a body that is

214

comprised of Oxfam staffs, relevant government experts, and representatives of the
coffee union and primary coffee cooperatives. “The change is communicated
downwards,” Shemsiya noted.
Solomon and Simret agree with their colleague Shemsiya that discussions are, in
principle, possible between experts and citizens. “It all depends,” according to Solomon
“on how passionate” the NGO worker is. “Offering to listen to communities and vowing
to advocate for their cause depends on the personality of individual NGO staff.” On the
flip side, Solomon stated development workers that “lack personality could foil
participation with the belief that they know what is good for the community.” Similarly,
Simret posited that development initiatives, which are not based on the input of the
community, are doomed to fail. She was wary of the influence of “people with technical
knowledge” and “donors.” She defended her organization’s policy to put limited
personnel on the ground – guarding communities from the pressure experts could possibly
exert.
Many of the examples and arguments of the experts, one way or another, speak to
the dialectical tensions between indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge.
Anteneh of World Vision explained:
The communities have knowledge. We should find out what they don’t have and
come to them with innovations to fill that gap. Therefore, knowing the community
has to be the first step. For example, I was once traveling between two
development areas of World Vision. I saw a farmer walking with some cabbages
on the back of his donkey. We knew eating vegetables was not a common thing in
that area. I stopped him and asked the name of his village. I went to his village the

215

next day and saw that people had made a small canal from a small spring to their
plot. I asked what we could do for them. They told me the well gets dry
sometimes. We improved the spring and capped it for them. We also told them
how they could get vegetable seeds. Then this nearby small town was filled with
cabbages. We went to a different place with vegetable seeds and dug for water for
them. It took us a lot of effort to get them to understand what we were up to. Not
only that, it is possible that one suggestion forces itself into the other when you
try to integrate two areas of knowledge.35
Anteneh seems to suggest that integration works best when the indigenous initiatives and
innovative ideas mature themselves and meet somewhere in the middle. I asked him what
if there had been no initiatives locally. He responded, “Communities have sustained life
for generations. It is not possible they lived without putting some effort into making their
life better.” Similarly, Abreham indicated their job should be limited to “introducing
development gaps of the community to innovations out there.” He argued they would
“show” how communities could rise their production from 20 quintals per hectare of land
to 30 or 40 quintals. The strategies they would use to achieve that, according to Abreham,
would include “demonstration, capacity building and organizing experience exchange
opportunities for the farmers.”
Explaining how indigenous knowledge becomes critical in certain areas, Anteneh
cited grassroots conflicts between ethnic groups as an example. He argued peace-building
efforts would be difficult when the police and local militia forces try to handle it by
themselves. He explained how it gets much easier to find the root causes and fix them
when community members are involved. He noted, “They [community members] might

216

have a hand in it [the conflict].” Likewise, Abreham thought when elders are involved
other community members would open up and be more willing to reconcile.
I could tell that there was consensus among research participants about the need
for constructive expertise-local knowledge integration. While they were very good at
articulating what ought to be done, NGO experts, like the government employees, rarely
reflected on their practice. Exceptionally, Wondwosen seemed self-critical but sill framed
bad practices as things of the past:
I see it in two ways: the practices before three, four years and the ones after that.
The first one was fully a top-down approach. The experts’ ideas get to the
community. The chance to do things contrary to the community wanted them, but
the expert’s way was open. The community didn’t have much chance. That was
not participation. Manipulation better describes it. On the other hand, there are
policies and efforts to accept community knowledge and try to build on that.
However, the practice is not as much as you want it to be. We have policies and
we discuss this, but I think we are short of practices because old habits die hard.
More work has to be done on the minds of the professionals. You see tensions
(between the indigenous and experts’ ways). In some places you see them pulling
each other. In some places they go their ways separately. Sometimes they collide.
I think how to strike that balance might require a comprehensive study. The
reason for the failure of many programs might have got to do with the unresolved
tension.36
Wondwosen described the tensions very well. However, I am not sure if the
tensions necessarily lead to program failure. There is a good chance they may lead to

217

creativity. I agree getting out of customary ways and collaboratively exploring new
approaches would be the way to go forward.
Tilahun (World Vision) does not see the tension between expertise and
indigenous knowledge. He argued, “Scientific discoveries build upon existing local
knowledge. The goal is the same. No contradictions.” However, he showed where the
distinction lies when he said, “There may be differences with the process” of getting at
the goal.
Summary
In this chapter, my goal was to learn about how Ethiopians describe the concepts
and practices of community participation. I have presented the voices of community
members, NGO staffs and government officials and experts. Looking at sixty-four
interviewees’ conceptualization of community participation, I gathered that Ethiopian
development actors are conversant (of course with varied degreed) with the principles of
participation. Obviously, the NGO workers explained the rationale for community
participation better than community members and government staffs and officials. I
noticed global discourses and terminologies used to describe participation seem to be
more popular than the home-grown terminologies for community collaboration. I rarely
heard people talk about traditional self-help systems and terms like debo and jigi. I will
argue, in the next chapter, that this is a kind of “cultural imperialism.”
Whereas all participants talked about how the venture of development requires
the collaboration of all parties, what I noted, from their talks and the ways they framed
participation, was the inherent tensions between the experts and communities. The
experts were more vocal about communities’ lack of knowledge that policy discussions

218

require. Community members appeared to be shy and unconfident talking about whether
they could contribute ideas. They often conceded lack of ability. The experts used such
space to exert power and push the agenda of their organization across. Most of the
experts and the community members I interviewed were not at ease describing the space
available to them for policy deliberations.
In sum, the chapter presented research participants’ perceptions about social
change, NGO roles in rural development and whether or not communities are
meaningfully participating in making decisions on rural development issues. Privileging
expert voices, attempts at redefining community development and the reflections over the
prevalence of free spaces for public deliberation are among the themes that stand out.
Findings in this chapter and the previous two chapters have already shown some patterns.
In the last chapter, I will put the major findings from all the three data analyses
chapters into conversation to reach at conclusions about the nature of “community
participation” rhetoric and practices in Ethiopia.

219

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter begins with a brief summary of the project, which includes a review
of the goal of the study, the theoretical lens and research methodology employed, and my
standpoints. Then, I bring the major findings from the rhetorical criticism, ethnographic
field observations and interviews into conversation with one another to further illuminate
the interests of the rhetors and explore whether the claims in the rhetoric of manifest in NGOs’ interactions with communities in Ethiopia. Then, I turn
towards a discussion of the theoretical, practical and policy implications of the study
before I finish the chapter by highlighting limitations of the project and possibilities for
future research.
The chapter answers the four research questions that guided this study: 1) Around
what ideographs do development agencies organize their discourses of participatory
development? Why these particular ideographs? 2) How is participatory development
enacted in actual community interactions with Oxfam and World Vision staff? Whose
voices are heard? 3) How conducive are the discursive spaces used by/available to NGOs
in Ethiopia for promoting the engagement of communities in public deliberations? 4)
How closely do NGOs’ international discourses of community participation resemble the
communication among grassroots development stakeholders in rural Ethiopia?
Project Summary
The aim of this study has been to acquire an understanding of how the global
discourse of plays out in grassroots situations in Ethiopia. In
trying to achieve this goal, I carried out rhetorical analyses of the discourses surrounding
the overarching ideographs of and . I

220

examined the discourses of the United Nations, the World Bank, Oxfam GB, World
Vision International, local Ethiopian communities, and the Ethiopian government in a bid
to follow the discursive chains linking organizations and communities. I also conducted
field studies in Ethiopia in order to understand the local practices of public deliberation.
While scholars from different fields have studied various aspects of “community
participation,” I focused on furthering the rare scholarship on this subject from a
communication perspective. I was interested in illuminating
as a rhetorical construct that development agencies currently employ to control
communities while appearing to uphold democratic values.
My framing of the origins of the rhetoric was very
much influenced by my African, anti-colonial, advocate standpoint. My position is that
the poor must be allowed to speak on issues that matter to their lives, despite the difficult
situations they might be in. Growing up, I benefited from the wisdom of rural
communities in Ethiopia. The wisdom may not qualify as “expertise,” according to the
definition of the term offered by elites, but I argue that proven experiences about life in a
community are useful inputs in the discussion of how life in that community can be
transformed.
I found postcolonial theory to be a perfect fit for my standpoint. It enabled me to
deconstruct issues of power embedded in the discourses and practices of “community
participation.” The postcolonial lens allowed me to take my arguments from a specific
ideograph, , to a larger, highly significant global phenomena
(neocolonialism and neo-liberalism). My analysis shows that the rhetoric of “community
participation” was introduced as a form of resistance to previous colonial discourses.

221

However, I learned that good expressions might not always guarantee good actions. For
example, the preamble to the 1884-1885 Berlin conference on “The scramble for Africa”
claims that colonization was motivated “in a spirit of good and mutual accord, to regulate
the conditions most favourable to the development of trade and civilization in certain
regions of Africa” (emphasis mine). Similarly, Article 6 of the declaration argues that the
purpose of colonization was to bring home “the blessings of civilization” to the natives.
In spite of the flowery language, this act led to one of the darkest moments in the
history of humanity. The commitment, expressed in the language of “suppressing
slavery,” ended up in expanding slavery. This case provides a sufficient reason to believe
the God terms may not always translate into good actions. In the case of this study, God
terms like “community participation” have been used to obscure the centralized and top-
down practices of the powerful agents of “development.”
It was important for a project arguing for a multiplicity of voices to gather data
from multiple sources. The fact that I was able to employ mixed methods to collect data
from both ends of the global development partnership (Western nations and grassroots
communities in Ethiopia) helped make my arguments stronger and balanced. I was able
to build rich datasets, which I can always draw from to carry out further research on
specific aspects of my dissertation. For example, the dataset from the Ethiopian press is
so rich that it can be used for multiple future projects.
The juxtaposition of voices and also the triangulation of textual data analysis with
primary field data analysis has been a complex but a very rewarding task. As a
communication scholar, my main purpose has been developing an understanding of the
role of communication in organizing for social change. Most communication scholars

222

approach studies either from rhetorical or social scientific angles. I critiqued both the
discourse of “community participation” and face-to-face interactions to reach my
conclusions. In what follows, I summarize conclusions from key findings in Chapters
Four, Five and Six.
Interpretations of Major Findings
: The beloved ideograph. Participation has been
endorsed enthusiastically first by global and then by local development agencies as a
“formula to remedy past failures” of development. I was overwhelmed by Western-based
organizational discourses of “community participation.” The Ethiopian government and
community members also used it, albeit with a varied degree of frequency. A renowned
Ethiopian professor, Mesfin Woldemariam, observes, “It is a phrase loved by
everybody.” This enthusiasm is related to the fact that “participation” is a nebulous term,
which does not impose any specific obligations on donors and governments (Feeney,
1998).
Rhetors of different ideological orientations (e.g., democrats, autocrats) seem to
have found “community participation” useful. In my view, this is the case because: a)
Involving people in development is a lofty moral virtue everyone can easily embrace at
first, and b) the ambiguity of the phrase makes it lend itself to a range of interpretations.
While those on the democratic side of the continuum frame more as an
inalienable human right, which permits citizens from all walks of life to air their
concerns; those on the autocratic side use it to force citizens to contribute to the cause of
the rulers. The word “participation” has historically accumulated certain meanings and
rhetors of various interests draw upon these meanings as deemed necessary. Easterly

223

(2013) is right in contending, “One of the surprises from the history of ideas is that the
same ideas could appeal simultaneously to racists and antiracists, to colonialists and
anticolonialists” (p. 15). That is exactly what “community participation” does. It appeals
to both the “colonialists” and “anti-colonialists.”
Cultural imperialism? Everybody not only embraced “community participation”
but it also appears to have supplanted its homegrown, Ethiopian equivalents and
concepts. Ethiopian words like debo and jigi are considered obsolete and hence are being
replaced by the likes of yehibreteseb tesatfo and hirmanna humata, which are direct
translations of “community participation.” On a poster hanging in one kebele office in
rural Ethiopia, “Hirmanna Humeta” (“community participation” in Afan Oromo) tops the
list of principles the kebele vows to live by (see photo in appendix G). This is an example
of how communities in Ethiopia are affected by Western discourses of community
participation. It is ironic that discourses of “community participation,” which are
supposed to counter the imposition of Western ideas on communities in the Global South
provide a case study of how Western discourses unseat indigenous ideas. In this regard
the famous African postcolonial theorist, Ngugi Wa Thiongo (1986), explains how
imperialism succeeds in uprooting African expressions and replaces them with Western
ideas and language:
The oppressed and the exploited of the earth maintain their defiance: liberty from
theft. But the biggest weapon wielded and actually daily unleashed by
imperialism against that collective defiance is the cultural bomb. The effect of a
cultural bomb is to annihilate a people’s belief in their names, in their languages,
in their environment, in their heritage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities

224

and ultimately in themselves. It makes them see their past as one wasteland of
non-achievement and it makes them want to distance themselves from that
wasteland. It makes them want to identify with that which is furthest removes
from themselves; for instance, with other peoples’ languages rather than their
own. (p. 3).
The communities I researched have no or very limited access to the mainstream media.
Thus, if not the media, then Western NGOs (after missionaries and colonial forces) are
mostly the ones bridging the flow of discourses from the West to rural Africa.
Interviewing local community members and observing NGO-community meetings, I
learned that more educated members of the community like local government officials
and experts used a variant of “community participation” more frequently than the
ordinary farmers.
The homogenization and routinization of “participation”. I came to learn that
participation is a very broad and ambiguous term. While participation has layers/levels,
the rhetoric of explored in this study obscures the layers and
sends an impression that every instance of participation is the same. For example,
participating in project decision-making is not the same as not saying a word and digging
ditches for six hours. Arnstein (2001) explains that “participation” has different levels
ranging from “manipulation” (placing citizens in rubberstamp committees) to “citizen
control” (citizens demanding community-controlled facilities like schools). We do not see
the discourses I investigated making distinctions between these levels.
I found that “community participation” was invariably used to describe a range of
scenes including citizens sitting in meetings, looking completely confused (partly

225

because of not knowing the language used in the meeting), making the required amount
of financial, labor or material contributions (whether they are willing or not) and
presenting requests and explaining their situations to NGO staff and government officials,
when they get the chance to speak. On the other hand, NGO experts controlled the whole
process from setting the agenda, to selectively inviting attendees, to using their rhetorical
advantages to systematically lead communities to make decisions their organization
wanted, to reporting back to the powerful agency. In most of the annual reports I read, the
NGO staff reported that the community “actively participated” in making decisions and
that plans were executed “with the active participation of the community.” Those who
write history influence the nature of that history. In the case of community participation,
the experts get to decide what gets reported and how these development reports are
framed. There is little guarantee that community voices get properly accounted for, even
in the case of a “bottom-up” development process. The discourses I examined rarely
addressed the question, “Participation in what?” They used ambiguity as a rhetorical
resource for redefining participation as “labor, material or money contributions” rather
than as decision-making on issues that matter.
Whether the organizations I studied frame “participation” as a means to an end or
as an end in itself was not always clear. The discourses often advanced the two
conflicting ideographs of and . There is an inherent tension between
the utilitarian and participatory approaches to development. While the former assumes a
predetermined path to reach solutions to development challenges, the latter
(participatory) approach is the closest thing to Habermas’ concept of “communicative
action,” which presupposes multiple realities and favors intersubjective, open

226

communication that leads participants to reach tentative conclusions. International
organizations’ discourses of “community participation” have obscured these important
philosophical tensions. While the rhetoric of NGOs emphasize some variant of
communicative action, their practices (more so with World Vision than Oxfam) lean
toward achieving strategic goals via utilitarian approaches.
When it comes to procedures of “participatory development” that I observed,
there is an apparent routinization of the steps to be followed. I am not opposed to
decorum or some kinds of rules to follow during NGO-community meetings. Doing it as
a matter of requirement or for the sake of being politically correct does not seem to
motivate participants to be creative. Participatory development is supposed to be a push
back against pre-determined steps and solutions and maintain openness and flexibility.
Paradoxically, the result of the field study indicate, NGO-community meetings,
especially in the case of World Vision, were standardized and resulted in endorsing ideas
pre-decided by NGO staff.
Discursive . The word “community” is an important word very
commonly used in the UN, the World Bank and NGO discourses of development. It has
gained currency in Ethiopia too. It is replacing words like “public” and “the people,”
which became popular after the 1974 revolution in Ethiopia. “Community” is becoming
popular in Ethiopia partly because of the influence of international organizations’
discourses of development. It evokes for audiences a positive sense of inclusiveness and
harmony. However, it is often employed by development organizations to hide the
heterogeneity and complexity of citizen groups and the resulting power struggles within a
“community.” Guijt and Shah (1999) contend, “This mythical notion of community

227

cohesion continues to permeate much participatory work, hiding a bias that favours the
opinion and priorities of those with more power and the ability to voice themselves
publicly” (p. 1). The rhetoric makes it sound like the interest of every member of a
community is represented. NGO staff members, especially, liked to say, “we are doing
this because the community demanded it.” There is a continued use of “community” in
the sense of a homogenous and unified population with which the NGO workers can
engage easily. NGO staff members homogenize community because it allows them to
claim that they have addressed the needs of every community member, as if all
community interests are the same. Findings of the field study suggest women, the youth,
the elderly and less educated citizens have not been adequately represented in meetings.
Thus, I argue, “community” is rather a rhetorical construct of powerful organizations, not
a specific group of citizens as such. As Guijt and Shah (1999) rightly put it,
“communities never existed in the way people romanticize them today” (p. 8). Even NGO
staff members stationed at headquarters or regional officers refer to citizens as “the
community” not even as “communities” as if all communities are the same.
Part of the reason why NGOs are obsessed with the word “community” is that it
gives them a sense of legitimacy to speak comfortably on behalf of citizens. Ideally,
legitimacy is supposed to come from the democratic procedures followed to reach
agreements. In the majority of the meetings I observed, organizational staff made
decisions prior to the meetings. But still development agencies jump on the “community
participation” bandwagon for public relations purposes.
Having established how indistinct the terms “participation” and “community” are
separately, I argue that the phrase “community participation” embodies a marriage of two

228

notoriously ambiguous terms, making its meaning confusing and open to widely different
interpretations. Both “participation” and “community” are appealing and persuasive terms
(Nelson & Wright, 1995). Many audiences take the rhetoric in good faith. But I join a
group of scholars who choose to critically question the status quo.
as contested ground. As we have seen in Chapter
Four, the conceptualization of poverty and the ideographs used to organize the situation
of the poor varied over time. is the ideograph that provides the reason
(exigency) for NGOs to carry out development work. Ideographs like
and make the poor responsible for their own situation. These
ideographs were used by European colonial powers to justify their decisions to control
Africa and exploit the poor. Colonial empires were rationalized on the ground of
. allowed the colonizers to advance , approaches and employ language. Later, these devil ideographs were
replaced with milder ones, partly because of the resistance that resulted from anti-
colonial movements and global counter-colonial, anti-racist discourses.
Since the 1950s, African nations started to gain independence. Independence
allowed African elites to forge Pan-Africanism—a movement responsible for generating
counter-colonial discourses. Given the strong resistance from the Global South, which
was aided by the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, the Western rhetoric of poverty had
to change. Poverty was reframed as “lack of technical knowledge.” The response was
. The means were the sharing of . These ideographs are often
used to sustain old colonial interests of suppressing the interest of the poor. In the
neoliberal era, following the Cold War period, the Western nations’ and global

229

institutions” rhetoric of prescribed recipes of economic development for
developing countries. The West’s enforcement mechanisms were humanitarian aid and
economic incentives (Pieterse, 2006).
On the one hand, humanitarian NGOs of Western-origin promoted the neoliberal
agenda (e.g., privileging efficiency over public good). This might be because of their
interest in funding from Western governments and agencies like the UN and the World
Bank. In some cases we see that the neoliberal approach of placing emphasis on market
liberalization and consumerism comes in conflict with the NGOs’ philanthropic goals of
reducing poverty and protecting consumers. On the other hand, we see that NGOs do not
subscribe to the neoliberal agenda. For example, they expressed frustrations with the neo-
liberal approaches during the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial
Conference in Seattle. Not only were NGOs very vocal, they also played an effective
grassroots organizing role by mounting intense pushback against WTO (Wells, Shuey &
Kiely 2001). Love-hate might better express the relationships between many NGOs and
global financial agencies and donors.
In the 1980s, critics started to question if the flow of finance and
from North to South alone was the solution for lack of development. They wanted to
know why there was still rampant poverty in developing countries after decades of
diffusion. As a result of posing this question, there was a movement to
reframe poverty as lack of . Unjustly denying the poor their basic right of
participation in decision-making was considered a contributing cause of poverty. Since
then, the rhetoric of has flourished. However; the desire to

230

privilege lingers, sitting in ideological tension with .
Tensions between < expertise> and . There is no
doubt in my mind that communities need NGOs and experts to improve unacceptable
current situations. I understand expertise is one element, perhaps the critical element that
has transformed the world. I totally agree with Easterly’s characterization of experts in
explaining the purpose of his book, The Tyranny of Experts:
When my toilet stops working, I am grateful for the expert plumber. When I get
giardia, I am grateful for the expert doctor who prescribes Flagyl. Experts in
sanitation, health, and education offer huge benefits for the world’s poor.
Medicines and antimalaria nets certainly save lives. This book is not about
condemning all expertise, it is about distinguishing between good and bad
ambitions for expertise in development. (p. 16)
Likewise, “community participation” is a noble concept. It is very important for countries
like Ethiopia where democratic culture is underdeveloped. Community participation
could serve as a training ground for democratically generating ideas that might help solve
problems the society is facing. Communities in Ethiopia have put huge faith in NGOs,
which have Western origins and international experiences. NGOs have tried to instill
some democratic values. This could be the main reason why the Ethiopian government
has been skeptical of human rights NGOs since the 2005 elections. So how do
and stand in tension with one another?
My argument, in this study, is that the discourses that underpin have
been unfairly used to undermine communities’ rights to participate fully in the process of

231

development. Dietz (1995) argues that the democratic tradition is under pressure in the
contemporary world. “One source of the pressure,” Dietz contends, “is the power of
science and technology to transform the world” (p. xviii). In the discourses of NGOs and
multilateral organizations I examined, silenced ordinary citizens for lack of
modern education or “expertise.” Here is where problems arise. I was concerned to see
systematic privileging of higher level of modern education. For example, when NGO
staff members bring project plan matrixes written in English to meetings where
predominantly uneducated people attend, there is no level ground for participation. I have
seen this happen as I reported in Chapter Five. These participatory practices are self-
defeating.
Like earlier colonial discourses that portrayed Africans as uncivilized, the
portrayal of ordinary Africans as uneducated and uninformed justify expert decision-
making. The experts always talked about how capable the communities were of taking
part in discussions with them. NGO staff members are not opposed to community
participation. In fact, they provide several reasons why communities should be part of the
decision-making. Yet, the actions I saw in the field spoke to me about the practices of the
NGO workers far louder than their words.
Despite good intentions: rhetoric versus
practice. Oxfam and World Vision have been doing well. Communities greatly
appreciate their contributions. They have good intentions and put a lot of effort into
development. Some NGO staff members have to live in hostile environments (e.g.,
malaria, ethnic clashes) and in localities where there is no running water, electricity or
Internet service. Despite their efforts, there are often gaps between NGOs’ insistence on

232

the importance of participation and their practice of participation on the ground. The
interviews and ethnographic observations suggest that the deliberative practices on the
ground are far from matching the rhetoric of “community participation.”
As pointed out in several other studies, many NGO projects were found to be non-
participatory or to manifest a weak degree of participation (Chambers, 1997, Feeney,
1998; Serveas, 1996). I argue, at least in the case of the NGOs I studied, that the word
“participation” is usually used as a “cosmetic label,” while the more important
preoccupation for these organizations is cost-reduction and public relations. Whereas
“empowerment” is emphasized as the aim of “community participation,” I often did not
find this to be the case in practice. Of course, there were some hopeful examples like the
case of Lelistu Women’s Self Help Association. The spirited conversations among
members of the association, which were uncharacteristic of Muslim women in the study
area, were indicative of how empowering participation could be.
The ultimate goal of “community participation” should be emancipating the poor.
“Community participation” is supposed to imply the end of marginalization and herald
the inclusion of new voices at the table of development discussions. It has to bring about
change in unfair social systems and power relationships. In the previous chapters, we
have seen how power sits right in the middle of the tensions surrounding the discourses
of “community participation.” The central tension between and calls for the redistribution of power held by experts. In a situation where
the powerful remain powerful, claims of “community participation” do not hold water. To
explain the case of “participation” without power redistribution, Arnstein (2011) cites a
poster painted by frustrated French students. The poster translated into English reads, “I

233

participate, you participate, he participates, we participate…they profit” (p. 3). It
exemplifies a situation where communities “participate,” experts make decisions, and the
interests of organizations are served.
From what I observed in the field, the NGO workers had a tremendous rhetorical
advantage because they set the rules of the meetings and the language of conversations.
Except in the case of the women’s credit association, I did not see negotiations taking
place over the rules of the game. In addition to their expertise, the wealthy organizations
they represent, the amount of current information they have, their access to technology,
and the influential networks they have made the NGO staff members looked very
powerful. Their nonverbal cues conveyed their power. I argue that NGOs are still the
locus of power, with slight variation among them. World Vision looked like a more
powerful organization than Oxfam. The Oxfam development facilitator was, in most
cases, willing to let go of her power. On the other end, marginalized community members
looked helpless because of these choices (of language, procedures of the meeting, lack
information, etc.) the experts made prior to the start of the meetings.
Multiple accountability and limited space for deliberation: NGOs are
accountable to multiple partners: donors, international headquarters, the host government,
the community they serve and other stakeholders. Each party has interests, which may
stand in tension with the interests of others. For example, international donors’ desire of
instilling democratic culture comes in tension with the host government’s desire to
control grassroots activities (e.g., the one-to-five surveillance/mobilization mechanism).
Wills (2005) argues, “Managing these tensions is a difficult endeavor and one in which
the long-term participatory strategy of projects is likely to suffer” (p. 113). According to

234

Wills, “many projects are more likely to react to the requirements and preferred activities
of the potential donors than local people” (p. 113).
NGO headquarters demand that staff invest in projects with “tangible” results
while at the same time meeting reporting timelines. Headquarters and donors send
community-based field offices all kinds of manuals and procedures to follow, including
community participation manuals. NGO staff members on the ground have a feeling that
deliberative space in Ethiopia is increasingly constrained by government regulations
(e.g., the civil society code enacted in January 2009) and activities of government
officials and militia at the grassroots levels.
The common denominator of interest for all the parties listed above seems to be
“development.” But still there are differences when it comes to the question of how to
prioritize and how development should be approached. This study joins a group of studies
insisting that donors must understand the local tensions and revisit their modes of
partnership with implementing NGOs if they are serious about democracy and long-term
goals of development. One of the constraints for “community participation” that NGO
staff members frequently reported was the pressure from donors for “timely reports” and
“showing results/impacts.”
The way forward: Highlighting practices and making policy recommendations
This study may appear to be dominated by cynical complaints about the failure of
“community participation.” In this section, I balance my criticisms of past participation
practices by highlighting windows of hope. Based on the discussions thus far and the
findings of the study, I highlight best practices surrounding “community participation”
and make some policy recommendations. I see hope for community participation in

235

dialogic approaches to communication. Thus, my recommendations for better
deliberative practices are largely informed by Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the ideal
speech situation and the dialogic communication theory Stanley Deetz developed
drawing on Gadamer (1975). Deetz and Simpson (2004) argue that Habermas’ and
Gadamer’s views of dialogue complement each other to provide “more productive
guidance to reforming human interaction and enhancing mutual, free, and open decision
making” (p. 142). In addition to the theoretical basis, I integrate ideas from my readings
and experience into my recommendations. I categorize the development actors mainly
into two clusters: 1) the global actors (the UN, the World Bank, other donors and NGOs’
international headquarters) and 2) grassroots actors (NGO field offices, NGO staff,
communities and the host government). I am careful not to fall in the devil “top-down”
trap by suggesting a one-size-fits-all method of public deliberations. Research needs to be
done to come up with ideas of what works best for a given community and the context of
its relationships with NGOs. I believe, at this point, I am sufficiently informed to make
suggestions for the specific organizations and communities I studied.
Suggestions for the United Nations, the World Bank and other donors. From
the juxtaposition of the narrower and wider circumferences of the pentadic analysis, I
learned that donor expectations of NGOs help expand liberal democracy, on the one
hand, and urge the implementation of the neo-liberal economic ideal of maintaining
efficiency, on the other hand. This tension influenced the ways the participatory drama
played out at the community level in Ethiopia. Based on my findings, I suggest that
international donors and influential multilateral organizations should not rush project
implementing NGOs to instill Western templates of participation in an entirely different

236

cultural context. By its very nature, community participation is a lengthy process that
requires patience. If we have to stay away from coercions, then communities need time to
digest ideas, consult with their elders and opinion leaders before they say “yes.” Unlike
individualistic values of speed, competition, and efficiency, calmness is a virtue in
collectivistic societies. There are two popular Ethiopian proverbs that support my point
here: 1) sirotu yetatekut sirotu yifettal (clothes put on while running come off easily) and
2) yerega wotet kibe yewetawal (still milk gives more crème). It takes rural community
members in Ethiopia a long time before they open up their mouths to say the first word.
They want to make sure they trust the other parties before telling them their true feelings.
Thus, donors need to understand the particularity of vernacular public spheres and
encourage NGOs to come up with a model for negotiating ideas, which is closer to the
traditions of a given community. A good example could be the “community
conversation” method researched and implemented in Ethiopia by UNDP. It is a model
where a trained facilitator (community member) and other interested community
members, of all types, sit together in a circle (usually on the ground) and talk about
problems in their neighborhood and how they could fix them. This method was acclaimed
for being effective in creating HIV/AIDS awareness.
The United Nations, the World Bank and other donors need to decide which one
of their two competing interests (promotion of democracy or efficiency) is more
important to them. They have to be sure of their commitment to participatory democracy.
It is only then that their support of NGOs will be productive. Emphasizing “efficiency”
over “participation” leaves NGOs in a difficult position.

237

Robert Chambers (2012) makes a very important reference to the Paris
Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which was a 2005 agreement between donor nations
and organizations (including the UN and the World Bank). He went through the
declaration, identified words which were used most often and made up a sentence: “To
monitor indicators effective performance from aid, donors and partners need the capacity
to manage the mutual harmonization of programs to assess, measure and report on
results” (ANU Channel, 2012, 40:17). Such neo-liberal focus on efficiency, argues
Chambers, is “a shift from a paradigm of people to a paradigm of things.” On the other
hand, Chambers made up another sentence out of the words, which “do not appear
anywhere” in the Paris Declaration: “To negotiate and evolve agreements that optimize
outcomes for poor, vulnerable and marginalized people requires compromises and
tradeoffs based on personal conviction, interactions and relationships that nurture trust
and reflective appreciation of power and conflicts” (ANU Channel, 2012, 40:56). By so
doing, Chambers asked conference participants, which hemisphere was dominant. If a
similar kind of analysis is done to the United Nations’ and the World Bank’s discourses
of “participatory development,” we might see if words of “things” (efficiency) might
outnumber words of “people” (participation). For example, indicators of measurable
results dominate the grand Millennium Development Goals facilitated by the United
Nations. We do not see what Tirush calls the “software” or “people” aspect of
development like “participation” considered as measures of success in development.
Suggestions for the implementing NGOs. Oxfam and World Vision field offices
are accountable to multiple stakeholders. Their organizational boundaries appear to be
permeable and it is difficult to draw the dividing line between the organizations and

238

society. In dramatistic analysis in Chapter Five, we observed community members
stopping the Oxfam field worker anywhere they met her and talked to her about
community development issues. Blurring of boundaries is the nature of modern day
organizations (Deetz, 1995; Mumby & Stohl, 1996). This is more observable with Oxfam
than with World Vision, which appears to struggle to maintain its organizational identity.
Dealing with multiple stakeholders mostly poses the challenge of addressing
multiple interests. Organizations usually fail to properly coordinate the representation of
conflicting interests (Deetz, 1995). Along these lines, Deetz (1995) argues that “so-
called empowerment, participation, and diversity programs fail to assure even employee
representation if they are simply more humane and subtle continuations of managerial
control systems” (p. 49). I offer “A multiple stakeholder model of representation”
theorized by Deetz (1995). Originally this model was intended for for-profit corporations.
However, it can be adapted to non-profit organizations and public agencies. The model
enables organizations to discover situations in which “a diverse set of stakeholders find
that each of their independent interest are served by developing business relationships”
(p. 44). According to Deetz, instead of predetermined goal accomplishment, the model
aims at achieving “collaborative decision-making contexts, creativity and mutual
satisfaction” (p. 49). The payoffs, according to Deetz, include “greater representation,”
“better corporate goal accomplishment,” and “learning to participate in collaborative
decision-making.” The role of the NGOs will become “coordination of the conflicting
interests of stakeholders rather than the controlling of them.” They will focus on
“seeking the most creative codetermination for the benefit of all stakeholders” (p. 49).

239

If properly implemented, the multiple stakeholder model helps NGOs embrace the
multiplicity of voices and interests and be able to coordinate and negotiate with
stakeholders. This is a much better approach for the NGOs’ long-term success. Drawing
from available evidence, Deetz (1995) argues that different stakeholders would represent
different and more-long term interests than management does. Responding favorably to
the interests of the more powerful stakeholders at the expense of the less powerful one’s
benefits neither community development nor representation and participation. This kind
of approach does not show that organizations are playing their stewardship role. “We are
stewards” is one of World Vision’s values. Stewardship has a wider meaning than
spending resources properly. It is also about ensuring all voices are represented.
NGOs could employ the multiple stakeholder model of representation at the wider
(national, international) or narrower (grassroots level) circumferences. In what follows, I
want to focus on the community-level meetings and point out how the conception of the
multiple stakeholder model, dialogic communication and the ideal speech situation might
help NGO workers on the ground to better coordinate multiple interests and facilitate
creative codetermination of solutions for specific development challenges. In Chapter
Five, I presented the four conditions Habermas described as most important for ideal
discourses: 1) No one capable of making a contribution is excluded, 2) participants have
equal voice and equal chances to make arguments, 3) participants are honest with each
other and with themselves, and 4) there is no coercion built into the process.
Similarly, in his theorization of a dialogic communication perspective, Deetz
(1995) provided a collaborative approach to the meaning-making process where “the
concern with decision practice focuses on who participated in the constitutive practice

240

and whether negotiative codetermination took place” (p.107). In the dialogic approach,
interaction is believed to be “constitutive, codeterminative process giving rise to a truth
beyond that previously understood by any participant” (p.109). In light of these
theoretical bases, the Oxfam-community members meetings were relatively participatory.
For the most part, community members were vocal. Even then, it is difficult to suggest
the meeting met all the four requirements of the ideal speech situation standards outlined
by Habermas. All the committee members attended the meeting. The meeting was
inclusive of voices since these committee members were elected by the general
association membership. There were no signs of excluding voices. In principle, they had
equal voice and equal chances to make arguments. However, the Oxfam worker preferred
to lay back and watch rather than engage them in dialogic process of collective meaning
creation.
The World Vision community meetings exemplified what Deetz referred to as
“the informational view.” This approach “specifies personal expression as the potential
practice, and control through influence as a decision practice” (p. 101). The aim of group
communicative events is gaining public consent while still controlling the outcomes.
Development “facilitators” sharing pre-determined plans dominated the World Vision
community meetings that I observed. The procedures seemed to be in the interest of
organizational rhetoric and Western stakeholders. I did not witness a shift in power from
the organization to the community. The dialogic communication model and aspects of the
ideal speech situation should help the NGO workers to bracket power differentials and
facilitate participatory meaning negotiations and co-creation of new ones.

241

I observed that both Oxfam and World Vision field workers were committed to
bringing about change. They are Ethiopian citizens who neither see “community
participation” as a neoliberal project nor subscribe to it. In spite of expertise in certain
aspects of development and their good intentions, they lacked the skills necessary to
facilitate collaborative and productive discussions. Therefore, these NGOs need to offer
their field development staffs training centered in negotiating interests of multiple
stakeholders and facilitating dialogic communication.
NGOs should have confidence in formal and informal grassroots community
organizations. If they are serious about promoting bottom-up approaches to development,
they should recognize and work with traditional community associations. Since they have
traditionally been platforms for open, genuine conversations not very much affected by
power structures, the information that comes from these sites should be very beneficial to
NGOs. For instance, the leader of the geda system for the woreda was not invited to
meetings organized by World Vision. Part of the reason, in my view, is because World
Vision and its workers are critical of some geda rituals, which deviate from the
organization’s version of Christianity. Organizations should be open to negotiating not
only development but also culture. In this regard, the high trust Oxfam puts on grassroots
community organizations was exemplary.
Suggestions for the communities. Results of both the interviews and pentadic
analysis suggested that communities are generally the most powerless of all the
stakeholders. Lack of resources, education, and deliberative free space made them appear
to be the muted group. This lack of power was demonstrated, by their silence, gestures
and the seats they took (near the door and far from the center of attention) especially in

242

the meetings with World Vision workers. Participatory approaches were supposed to
empower them and change/minimize such unproductive features. Communities have
things to do to change their standing even before engaging with NGOs, the government
or other actors of development. One important thing they can do is discuss their own
situations within existing traditional social networks and be clear about what change they
desire. A development scholar and former NGO worker, Tirunesh Teklehaimanot
(personal communication, November 1, 2012), underscored the need for communities to
have their own vision. She argued that it is pointless to plan development interventions
and expect the community members to participate meaningfully in those projects unless
they know what they really want to achieve as a community.
The second important thing community members should do is organize
themselves around issues of interest to them. When communities organize themselves
and develop public deliberation skills, they do much better in discussions with experts.
The coffee cooperatives and the credit association in Limmu Seqqa is a good example of
how grassroots organizing enhances a community’s negotiating power. Findings showed
there are limited free spaces for grassroots organizing. Nevertheless, communities can
use existing grassroots units like the Idir (funeral association), Equb (traditional financial
institution), mahber (social/spiritual association) and neighborhood coffee parties in
creative ways to work around these limiting factors and digest ideas among themselves.
There are networked and vernacular spheres that are not controlled by the state or other
powerful parties. Communities can use these as venues for discussing development
issues, in addition to the social aspects. Communities should also nominate people to
represent them in meetings with other parties.

243

Suggestions for the host government. Habermas’ “ideal speech situation”
requires that there would be no interference of powerful institutions such as the state.
During discussions over development, citizens should be free to go in whatever direction
open dialogue takes them. However, most of the scenes of the NGO-community were not
free, as discussed in the pentadic analysis. Most of the meetings were held in a kebele
office with, in some instances, militiamen in attendance holding AK-47 machine guns.
At the national level, the government not only registers and issues licenses to NGOs but
also monitors their activities. In a situation like this, it is very difficult for a government
that fears the communities to facilitate dialogue. Thus, the Ethiopian government has to
allow NGOs and communities free spaces for discussions geared towards bringing about
economic development. After all, achieving economic development is the prime goal of
the government as discussed in Chapter Four. Development comes by community
participation, and participation comes through free space for public deliberations. The
Ethiopian government should make such freedoms of expression and association, which
are enshrined in the constitution, a reality at the national and local levels.
The Ethiopian government also needs to revisit the college curricula of
development workers education. The country has adopted a 70:30 enrolment ratio in
favor of science and technology courses. Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn told
Walta Information Centre in 2013, “Look at our education system. Our higher education
enrolment is 70% in engineering and science, and 30% in social science. So 70% are
going for industrialisation. Similarly, nearly all those who can’t get into higher education
go to technical and vocational training.” It is up to the country to choose a policy and
recipe. But I am among the citizens concerned about the fate of arts, humanities and

244

social sciences. The policy has resulted in the closure of some departments (e.g.,
philosophy) and the shrinking of others (e.g., languages) in Addis Ababa University. The
policy is indicative of the government’s perception of development more as “things”
rather than “people.” The privileged science and engineering disciplines do not often
include courses that help graduates prepare to engage grassroots communities in
development conversations.
During my field study in Ethiopia, I was sitting in a restaurant with a bright young
medical student. In the middle of our conversation, I asked him whether they take any
course related to communication. His answer was a resounding “No.” I probed further
and wanted to know if he thinks medical care providers need to have improved
communication skills to better understand and help patients. He did not seem to
appreciate the idea. I kept thinking that I have to use every opportunity to urge
curriculum developers to include communication courses in fields of study like medicine.
Unless they realize the human and communicative aspects of dealing with communities,
young college graduates are likely to resort to what they know best—
the technocratic or expertise approach. It is the responsibility of the government of
Ethiopia and NGOs to make sure field-level development practitioners get balanced
training before they engage with communities and also while on the job. Including
participation as an important chapter in civics textbooks for Ethiopian high schools is a
step in the right direction. This needs to have continuity in colleges.
Contributions of the Study
This study contributes to further theorizing on grassroots democracy. It
contributes to the literature on the influence of global rhetoric on grassroots deliberations

245

about social change. The study of “live,” grassroots level rhetoric is an emerging area in
the field of rhetoric. This study provides a case for employing rhetorical criticism to
provide accounts of nuanced, everyday experiences of communities in the course of
analyzing global discourses. In a predominantly oral society, creating texts that permit the
marginalized communities to speak to a wider audience is another contribution of this
project. The marriage of the rhetorical and ethnographic traditions provides a useful
resource for researchers who want to further develop the tradition of jumping over
methodological fences. Coming from the rhetorical and ethnographic traditions of
research, this study furthers the “ideal speech situation,” “genuine speech” and “dialogic”
communication theories advanced by Habermas, Gadamer and Deetz respectively. Unlike
many other studies, this study centers participation in communication studies. The current
project responds to the call for furthering communication-based postcolonial studies
(Shome, 1996; Shome & Hedge, 2001).
I argued in Chapter One that I am uniquely well suited to carry out this project.
My African, anti-colonial, pro-poor, social change-oriented communication scholar
identities have informed my worldview. Thus, even if other scholars have studied
“community participation,” this study adds a variant of “truth” as “truth” is dependent on
standpoint.
This research has practical implications for NGOs and other grassroots
development agents. The research helped me reflect on five years of involvement in NGO
work. I hope my colleagues and fellow NGO workers get a chance to reflect critically on
their service. I had no idea holding meetings with communities in rural neighborhoods
had a far-reaching connection with democracy and colonization. In my time with NGOs,

246

I would imagine that the goal of holding meetings with “the community” was living up to
organizational rules and donor expectations. In our reports, we wanted to show donors
that we were speaking their language. If I go back to work for them, I will be an expert
who advocates for “community participation” of a different type. I will help colleagues
see how grassroots communicative decision-making is connected to global discourses. I
will promote “community participation” as an “empowering” process and as a
mechanism for achieving “holistic” and truly “sustainable” development. If the study
could help me take the log out of my own eyes and clearly see, then I believe it will help
NGOs in Ethiopia become cognizant of the gaps between the rhetoric and practices of
“community participation” and perhaps adopt multiple stakeholder model of
representation and dialogic approaches to communication.
This study has limited itself to the communication-based, rhetorical and
deliberative aspects of participation. However, it can be used as a springboard for
researchers who want to further theorize what variant of democracy suits nations like
Ethiopia. I have heard/read from scholars and public officials in Ethiopia who argue that
homegrown types of democracy (like “revolutionary democracy” currently pursued by
the ruling party) work better for the nation than liberal democracy. For citizens of
Ethiopia who have long-standing collectivist traditions, a constitutive, participatory
democracy built on the indigenous traditions like the Geda system might be a good
alternative to revolutionary democracy or the self-expression-based, elitist, competitive
liberal democracy.
Limitations of the Study

247

Obviously, the study has its own limitations. First, given the large amount of
textual and field data I gathered, I am a little shy to say I have done justice to the datasets.
Some people I interviewed (like Ethiopian scholars) are out for strategic reasons of focus.
However, I will use those datasets for future researches. Second, each of the research
components (textual analysis and qualitative analysis of field data) has the potential for
further expansion. I had to limit myself in the interest of time and the triangulation
strategy I chose to pursue. Third, since one of the promises of the is a “bottom-up” flow of ideas, it would have been useful to study some
ideographs that were born in local communities and made the reverse journey to the
global sphere of development discourses. Fourth, I looked at discourses in the last six
decades, with most of my focus on the last three. However, since the roots of
“community participation” is located in discourses of colonialism and even pre-colonial
periods, a fully developed diachronic analysis should start at least from the time of the
Berlin conference held in 1884. Fifth, I put little emphasis on the interest and ideology of
the current Ethiopian regime because my focus was mainly on the connections of global
discourses to community practices and how NGOs mediated the communication process.
Sixth, it was not always easy to translate quotations from two vernacular languages into
English. It is possible that some expressions are slightly altered to make them
understandable to the audiences of this manuscript.
Conclusion
The theoretical giant of rhetoric, Kenneth Burke (1966), defines human beings as
“symbol-using, symbol-making, and symbol-misusing animals“(p.16). This describes
what human beings have done to the symbol “community participation”—made, used and

248

misused. Because of the cultural capital the phrase accumulated over time, people with
different motives have used it to mean different things and further different ends.
From the findings of textual and field data, I conclude that all stakeholder of
development agree, at least theoretically, that communities should be part of the decision-
making process on issues that matter to them. has become a
household phrase for development agents. It is starting to take root among the
communities themselves, unseating local variants. What progress has it made so far?
Very little. For the most part, the rhetoric of has missed the
boat. There is a reinterpretation of discourses at the local level. While international level
discourses seem to emphasize the aspect of participation as it is contained in the essence
of communicative action, local discourses and practices support the strategic, cost-
effectiveness aspects. The indigenous aspects of participation do not seem to have
affected the discourses and practices of NGOs. Because of power imbalance and lack of
good representation, local knowledge fails to factor into the reinterpretation of
discourses.
Even if organizational discourses foreground participation as a democratic right,
“most of the participatory approaches used in development at the moment are
‘participation as a means’” (Nelson & Wright, 1995, p. 17). Primarily, the rhetoric of
participation is employed to mask continued centralization in the name of
decentralization. The dramas in the field are performed to meet donors’ conflicting
interests of furthering liberal democracy and achieving neo-liberal gains in efficiency.
Together with aid money and interests in , the ideograph
warrants Western-based NGOs second chance to operate in

249

Africa. There has been a lot of pushback against colonial and neo-colonial approaches
from the global South. In some countries NGOs are considered Western spies and “agents
of dependency syndrome” (e.g., Eritrea). Thus, against this rhetorical situation,
development agents found it necessary to come up with concepts/phrases that help show
skeptical partners in the South, they have good intentions. One of these ideographs
happens to be . Rhetors of all sorts, including governments of
non-democratic states, embrace “community participation.” This might be because they
realized reciting the rhetoric and allowing some drama (procedures), would not result in
fundamental changes with existing power relations. It does not cost anyone if community
members sit in meetings without affecting decisions.
According to Pieterse (2006), development policies during neoliberal
globalization are a paradox. “NGOs are professionalized and depoliticized,” while their
aim is “building democracy by strengthening civil society” (p. 101). International
development agencies use the rhetorical technique of exploiting the contested ground of
meaning and continue to employ these words.
Colonialists sought to postpone the rights of Africans on the grounds of solving
technical problems first. After colonialism, is used to sustain top-down
approaches to development. Expertise offered justification for denying poor people a real
chance of discussing their own situations. The experts prefer to frame poverty as a
shortage of technical knowledge. For others, “poverty is a shortage of rights” (Easterly,
2013). Easterly argues, “The people in Africa have suffered through seven decades of
autocracy that started with a form of autocracy called colonialism and continued later
with technocratic justification for later autocrats” (p. 81). One of the finding of the

250

research is that there is gap between the claims the rhetoric of “community participation”
makes and actual practices of grassroots deliberations. Are there ways to minimize/close
the gap? Yes.
I want to end with a positive note that donors, NGO staff members, communities
and the government of Ethiopia all have one thing in common—the goal of positive
change in the lives of the poor. They are all stakeholders of development. There might be
differences in ideology and choice of approaches to development. However, the desire of
“development” is a common denominator, which should be used as a space to start to
engage in real dialogue. Yes, there is little free space for NGOs to engage communities
on issues like human rights (as stipulated in the Ethiopian law). Starting with economic
development and using creativity to go from there is the way out. The self-control
demonstrated by members of Lelistu Self-Help association can be regarded as a beacon
of hope and model for grassroots organizing and community participation.

251

References
Agunga, R. A. (1997). Developing the third world: A communication approach.
Commack, NY: Nova Science.

Ahmad, M. M. (2006). The NGO debate in development. In M.C. Behera (Ed.),
Globalising rural development: Competing paradigms and emerging realities.
New Delhi, India: Sage.

Ahmed, S., & Potter, D. (2006). NGOs in international politics. Bloomfield, CT:
Kumarian Press.

Allen, B. J. (1996). Feminism and organizational communication: A black woman’s
(re)view of organizational socialization, Communication Studies, 47, 257-271.

Amutabi, M. N. (2006). The NGO factor in Africa: The case of arrested development in
Kenya. New York, NY: Routledge.

Anderson, M. B., Brown, D., & Jean, I. (2012). Time to listen: Hearing people on the
receiving end of international aid. Cambridge, MA: CDA Collaborative Learning
Projects.

Angeles, L. C. (2005). Participatory development. In T. Forsyth (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
international development (pp. 506-511). New York, NY: Routledge.

Arnstein, S. R. (2011). A ladder of citizen participation. In A. Cornwall (Ed.), The
participation reader (pp. 3-18). London, UK: Zed.

Asante, M. (2004). Participatory communication for development and the African
philosophy debate. In C. O. Festus & E. Festus (Eds.), Development and
communication in Africa (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Australian National University [ANUchannel]. (2012, December 18). The challenges for
participatory development in contemporary development practice – Part 1 [Video
file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh3Ugs-CvaQ

Baaz, M. E. (2005). The paternalism of partnership: A postcolonial reading of identity in
development aid. New York, NY: Zed.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ballard, R. (2008). Between the community hall and the city hall: Five research questions
on participation. Transformation: Critical perspectives on Southern Africa, 66(6),
168-188.

Bamberger, M. (1988). The role of community participation in development planning and
project management. Washington DC: The World Bank.

252

Bariagaber, A. (2006). Ethiopia. In T. M. Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the developing
world (pp. 584-586). New York, NY: Routledge.

Baxter, P.T.W. (1996). Introduction. In P.T.W Baxter, A. Hultin, & A. Triulzi (Eds.),
Being and becoming Oromo: Historical and anthropological enquires (pp. 9-25).
Asmara, Eritrea: Red Sea Press.

Behera, M. C. (2006). Introduction. In M. C. Behera (Ed.), Globalizing rural
development: Competing paradigms and emerging realities (pp. 5-19). New
Delhi, India: Sage.

Bernstein, H. (2000). Colonialism, capitalism, development. In T. Allen & A. Thomas
(Eds.), Poverty and development into the 21st century (pp. 241-271). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development
communication. Ottawa, Canada: Southbound.

Birdsell, D. S. (1987). Ronald Reagen on Lebanon and Grenada: Flexibility and
interpretation in the application of Kenneth Burke’s pentad. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 73, 267-279.

Black, E. (1965/1978). Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Blake, C. (2010). The African origins of rhetoric. New York, NY: Routledge.

Boyd, J., & Waymer, D. (2011). Organizational rhetoric: A subject of interest(s).
Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 474-493.

Braithwaite, C. A. (1997). Sa’ah Naaghai Bik’eh Hozhoon: An ethnography of Navajo
educational communication practices. Communication Education, 46(4), 219-233

Broadfoot, K. J., & Munshi, D. (2007). Diverse voices and alternative rationalities:
Imaging forms of postcolonial organizational communication. Management
Quarterly, 21(2), 249-267. doi:10.1177/0893318907306037

Brummett, B. (2008). A rhetoric of style. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.

Burghchardt, C. R. (2005). Purposes of rhetorical criticism. In C. R. Burgchardt (Ed.),
Readings in rhetorical criticism (pp. ?). State College, PA: Strata.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature and method.
Berkley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

253

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Carter Center. (2009). Observing the 2005 Ethiopian national elections: Carter Center
final report. Retrieved from
http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/peace_
publications/election_reports/Ethiopia-2005-Finalrpt

Chambers, R. (1989). The state and rural development: Ideologies and an agenda for the
1990s, IDS Discussion Paper, 169. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development
Studies.

Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World
Development, 22, 953-969.

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London, UK:
Intermediate Technology.

Chambers, R. (1999). Foreword. In S.A. White (Ed.), The art of facilitating participation:
Releasing the power of grassroots communication (pp. 8-10). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Chambers, R. (2005). Ideas for development. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Chan, S. (2002). Liberalism, democracy and development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Chandler, D. (2011). Rethinking global discourses of security. In T. Chandler & N.
Hynek (Eds.), Critical perspectives in human security: Rethinking emancipation
and power in international relations (pp. 114-128). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cheney, G. (2000). Interpreting interpretive research: Toward perspectivism without
relativism. In S. R. Corman & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational
communication (pp. 17-45). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cheney, G., & McMillan, J.J. (1990). Organizational rhetoric and the practice of
criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 93-114.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational
communication in the age of globalization. Protect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to
development. In B. Cook & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny?
(pp. 36-55). New York, NY: Zed.

254

Cloud, D. L. (1998). The rhetoric of : Scapegoating, utopia, and the
privatization of social responsibility. Western Journal of Communication, 62,
387–419.

Condit, C. M., & Bates, B. R. (2009). Rhetorical methods of applied communication
scholarship. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of
communication research (pp. 106-128). New York, NY: Routledge.

Condit, C. M., & Lucaites, J. (1993). Crafting equality: America’s Anglo-African word.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Conquergood, D. (1992). Ethnography, rhetoric and performance. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 78, 80-123.

Conrad, C. (2011). Organizational rhetoric: Strategies of resistance and dominance.
Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Cook, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cook & U.
Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Zed.

Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005). Beyond buzzwords “poverty reduction,”
“participation” and “empowerment” in development policy. Program paper 10,
United Nations Research Institute for Social Change.

Crable, R. E. (1990). “Organizational rhetoric” as the fourth great system: Theoretical,
critical and pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
18, 115-128.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

Cutler, P. (1991). The political economy of famine in Ethiopia and Sudan. Environmental
Security, 20(5), 176-178.

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The
new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Deetz, S., & Simpson, J. (2004). Critical organizational dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A.
Baxter & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing differece in communication
studies (pp. 141-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

255

Deetz. S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building
responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Dempsey, S. E. (2009). NGOs, communicative labor, and the work of grassroots
representation. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6, 328-345.

Dietz, T. (1995). Democracy and science. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P.M. Wiedemann
(Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Technology, risk, and
society (pp. xvii-xix). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Dierks, R. G. (2001). Introduction to globalization: Political and economic perspectives
for the new century. Chicago, IL: Burnham.

Eade, D. (2010). Preface. In T. Forsyth (Ed.), Deconstructing development discourse:
Buzzwords and fuzzwords (pp. vii-x). Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action.

Easterly, W. (2013). The tyranny of the experts: Economists, dictators and the forgotten
rights of the poor. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Ellingson, L.L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Eriksen, E. O., & Weigard, J. (2003). Understanding Habermas: Communicating action
and deliberative democracy. New York, NY: Continuum.

Ewalt, J. (2011). A colonialist celebration of national : Verbal, visual, and
landscape ideographs at Homestead National Monument of America. Western
Journal of Communication, 75, 367–385.

Feeney, P. (1998). Accountable aid: Local participation in major projects. Oxford, UK:
Oxfam GB.

Fisher, W. F. (1997). Doing good? The politics and antipolitics of NGO practices. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 26, 439-464.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British
Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210-233.

Forsyth, T. (2005). Partnership. In T. Forsyth (Ed.), Encyclopedia of international
development (pp. 506-511). New York, NY: Routledge.

Foss, K. S. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland.

256

Foucault, M. (1983). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfys & P. Rabinow
(Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-264).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fox, C. (2002). Beyond the “tyranny of the real”: Revisiting Burke’s pentad as research
method for professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
11(4), 365-388.

Francis, P. (2001). Participatory development at the World Bank: The primacy of
process. In B. Cook & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp.
72-87). New York, NY: Zed.

Fraser, C., & Restrepo-Estrada, S. (1998). Communicating for development: Human
change for survival. New York, NY: I.B. Tauris.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

Gaillet, L. L. (2004). Writing program redesign: Learning from ethnographic inquiry,
civic rhetoric, and the history of rhetorical education. In S. G. Brown & S. I.
Dobrin (Eds.), Ethnography unbound: From theory shock to critical praxis (pp.
99-111). Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Gandhi, M. K. (1962). Village swaraj. Ahmedabad, India: Navaivan.

Garieis, E. (2010). Habermas to the rescue: Innovative assignment. Business
Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 166-175.

Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2006). Working with qualitative data. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.

Gill, P. (2010). Famine and foreigners: Ethiopia since Live Aid. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Gnesh, S., Zoller, H., & Cheney, G. (2005). Transforming resistance, broadening our
boundaries: Critical organizational communication meets globalization from
below. Communiation Monographs, 72(2), 169-191.

Gopal, G. (1995). Procurement and disbursement manual for projects with community
participation. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Gorzelsky, G. (2004). Shifting figures: Rhetorical ethnography. In S. G. Brown & S. I.
Dobrin (Eds.), Ethnography unbound: From theory shock to critical praxis (pp.
73-97). Albany, NY: State University of New York.

257

Gough, C., Kasmir, B., Jaeger, C., & Jaer, J. (2003). Citizen participation in sustainability
assessments. In J. Jager, C. C. Jaeger, & M. T. Gardner (Eds.), Public
participation in sustainability science (pp. 3-37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Grimes, D. S., & Parker, P. S. (2009). Imagining organizational communication as a
decolonizing project: In conversation with Broadfoot, Munshi, Mumby, and
Stohl. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 502-511.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1): Reason and
rationalization of society. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An enquiry into
a category of bourgeois society. (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Hailey, J. (2001). Beyond the formulaic: Process and practice in South Asian NGOs. In
B. Cook & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 88-101). New
York, NY: Zed.

Hansen, M. H. (2005). The tradition of ancient Greek democracy and its importance for
modern democracy. Copenhagen, Denmark: Det Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes.

Hanson, R. L. (1985). The democratic imagination in America: Conversations with our
past. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harrison, P, & Palmer, R. (1986). New out of Africa: Biafra to Bandaid. London, UK:
Robin Palmer & Worldvoice.

Hasian, M. (2001). Rhetorical studies and the future of postcolonial theories and
practices. Rhetoric Review, 20(1/2), 22-28.

Hassen, M. (1990). The Oromo of Ethiopia: A history 1570-1860. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.

Hauser, G. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres.
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Heath, R. L. (2011). External organizational rhetoric: Bridging management and
sociopolitical discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 415-436.

Henkel, H., & Stirrat, R. (2001). Participation as spiritual duty; empowerment as secular
subjection. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny?
New York, NY: Zed.

258

Hess, A. (2011). Critical-rhetorical ethnography: Rethinking the place and process of
rhetoric. Communication Studies, 62, 127-152.

Hettne, B. (1995). Development theory and the three worlds: Towards an international
political economy of development. New York, NY: Longman.

Hewitt, T. (2000). Half a century of development. In T. Allen & A. Thomas (Eds.),
Poverty and development into the 21st century (pp. 289-309). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Participation: From tyranny to transformation?
Exploring new approaches to participation in development. New York, NY: Zed.

Hilhorst, D. (2003). The real world of NGOs: Discourses, diversity and development.
New York, NY: Zed.

Hoffman, M. F., & Ford, D. J. (2010). Organizational rhetoric: Situations and strategies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobson, T. (2004). Participatory communication for development and the African
philosophy debate. In O. Charles & E. Festus (Eds.), Development and
communication in Africa (pp. 65-78). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jalata, A. (2001). Fighting against the injustice of the state and globalization. New York,
NY: Palgrave.

Johnson, R. L. (2006). Gandhi’s experiments with truth: Essential writings by and about
Mahatma Gandhi. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Kapoor, I. (2008). The postcolonial politics of development. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kasemir, B, Jaeger, C., & Jager, J. (2003). Citizen participation in sustainability
assessments. In J. Jager, C. C. Jaeger, & M. T. Gardner (Eds.), Public
participation in sustainability science (pp. 3-36). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Kavoori, A. P. (1998). Getting past the latest “post”: Assessing the term “post-colonial.”
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 195-212.

Khwaja, A.I. (2004). Is increasing community participation always a good thing? Journal
of the European Economic Association, 2, 427-436.

Kincaid, D. L., & Figueroa, M. E. (2009). Communication for participatory development:
Dialogue, action and change. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of applied communication research (pp. 506-532). New York, NY:
Routledge.

259

Koschmann, M. A. (2012). Developing a communicative theory of the nonprofit.
Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 139-146.

Krone, K. J. (2000). Becoming deeply multiperspectival: Commentary on finding
common ground in organizational communication research. In S. R. Corman &
M. S. Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication (pp. 144-151).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kulynych, J. J. (1997). Performing politics: Foucault, Habermas, and postmodern
participation. Polity, 30, 315-346.

Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for community participation: A complete guide for
practitioners. London, UK: ITDG.

Kuypers, J. A. (2005). The art of criticism. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical
criticism (pp. 13–27). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Kuypers, J. A. (2009). What is rhetoric? In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism:
Perspectives in action (pp. 1-12). Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Lee, R. (2005). Ideographic criticism. In J. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism:
Perspectives in action (pp. 305–344). Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Legesse, A. (1973). Gada: Three approaches to the study of African society. New York,
NY: Free Press.

Legesse, A. (2000). Oromo Democracy: An indigenous African political system. Asmara,
Eritrea: Red Sea Press.

Levine, D. N. (1974). Greater Ethiopia: The evolution of a multiethnic society. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives: Taking their
rightful place. Sterling, VA: Institute of Development Research.

Lugar, R. G. (2006). Nongovernmental organizations and democracy promotion “Giving
voice to the people: A report to members of the committee of foreign relations
United States Senate.” Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-
109SPRT31506/html /CPRT-109SPRT31506.htm

Lynch, R. A. (2011). Foucault’s theory of power. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Michel Foucault:
Key concepts (pp. 13-26). Durham, NC: Acumen.

260

Macedo, D. (2000). Introduction. In P. Friere, Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 11-28).
New York, NY: Continuum.

Madison, D.S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mafalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the
boundaries of communication. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2003). Evaluating community-cased and community-driven
development: A critical review of the evidence. Working paper, Development
Research Group, World Bank.

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work?
Washington, D.C: The World Bank.

Markakis, J. (2011). Ethiopia: The two frontiers. New York, NY: James Currey.

Marten, K. (2002). Mission impossible? Defining nongovernmental organizations.
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13, 271-285.

McCarthy, T. (1984). Translator’s introduction. In J. Habermas, The theory of
communicative action (Vol. 1): Reason and rationalization of society. (T.
McCarthy, Trans.) (pp. v-xxxvii). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

McEwan, C. (2009). Postcolonialism and development. New York, NY: Routledge.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 66, 1-16.

McKinnon, K. I. (2006). An orthodoxy of “the local”: Post-colonialism, participation and
professionalism in northern Thailand. Geographical Journal, 172, 22-34.

McPhail, T. L. (2009). Introduction to development communication. In T.L. McPhail
(Ed.), Development communication: Reframing the role of the media (pp. 1-20).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

McPhail, T. L. (2009). The major theories following modernization. In T.L. McPhail
(Ed.), Development communication: Reframing the role of the media (pp. 21-48).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Megerssa, G. (1996). Oromumma: Tradition, consciousness and identity. In P.T.W.
Baxter, A. Hultin, & A. Triulzi (Eds.), Being and becoming Oromo: Historical
and anthropological enquires (pp. 92-102). Asmara, Eritrea: Red Sea Press.

261

Meisenbach, R. J., & McMillan, J. J. (2006). Blurring the boundaries: Historical
developments and future directions in organizational rhetoric. In C. S. Beck (Ed.),
Communication yearbook (pp. 88-123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Meisenbach, R. J., Remeke, R. V., Buzzanell, P. M., & Liu, M. (2008). “They allowed”:
Pentadic mapping of women’s maternity leave discourse as organizational
rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 75, 1-24.

Middleton, M, K, Sendra-Cook, S., & Endres, D. (2011). Articulating rhetorical field
methods: Challenges and tensions. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 386-
406.

Midgley, J. (2011). Community participation: History, concepts and controversies. In A.
Cornwall (Ed.), The participation reader (pp. 172-181). New York, NY: Zed.

Mohan, G. (2000). Beyond participation: Strategies for deeper empowerment. In B.
Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 151-167). New
York, NY: Zed.

Mosse, D. (2003). The making and marketing of participatory development. In P.
Quarles van Ufford & A. Giri (Eds.), A moral critique of development: In search
of global responsibilities (pp. 43–75). London, UK: Routledge.

Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies.
Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50-72.

Myers, B. L. (2011). Walking with the poor: Principles and practices of transformational
development. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (1995). Power and participatory development: Theory and
practice. London, UK. ITDG.

Newman, J. (1995). The ballistic bard: Postcolonia fictions. New York, NY: St. Martin’s
Press.

OECD. (1995). Introduction and summary. In H. Schneider & M. Libercier (Eds.),
Participatory development from advocacy to action (pp. 9-14). Paris, France:
OECD.

Orvis, S. (2003). “Kenyan civil society: Bridging the urban rural divide?’ Journal of
Modern African Studies, 41(2), 247-268.

Oxfam International-Ethiopia. (2009, October 22). Band aid and beyond: Tackling
disasters in Ethiopia 25 years after famine. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/band-aids-and-beyond

262

Pant, S. (2009). International development theories. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 541-545). London, UK: Sage.

Papa, M. J., Singhal, A., & Papa, W. H. (2006). Organizing for social change: A
dialectic journey of theory and praxis. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Parks, W., Gray-Felder, D., Hunt, J., & Byrne, A. (2006). Communication for social
change anthology: Historical and contemporary readings. South Orange, NJ:
Communication for Social Change Consortium.

Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects: The World Bank
experience. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Pieterse, C. (2006). Neoliberal globalization and the Washington consensus. In A. S.
Huque & H. Zafarullah (Eds.), International development governance (pp. 91-
104). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Piffero, E. (2009). What happened to participation? Urban development and
authoritarian upgrading in Cairo’s informal neighbourhoods. Bologna, Italy: I
Libri di Emil.

Prasad, A. (1997). The colonizing consciousness and representations of the other: A
postcolonial critique of the discourse of oil. In P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M. Elmes, &
A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of
workplace diversity (pp. 285-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E, Cheibub, J. A., & Limong, F. (1992). Democracy and
development: Political institutions and well-being in the world 1950-1990.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, L. L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L.
L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An
interpretive approach (pp. 31-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Rahmato, D., Bantirgu, A., & Endeshaw, Y. (2010). CSOs/NGOs in Ethiopia: Partners in
development and good governance. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSO Taskforce.

Rich, R., & Newman, E. (2004). Introduction: Approaching democratization policy. In E.
Newman & R. Rich (Eds.), The UN role in promoting democracy: Between ideals
and reality (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: United Nations University.

Richards, G. (1991). The philosophy of Gandhi. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.

Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage.

Sealey-Morris G. (2009). “A cool drink of water before I die:” Four modern John Henry
songs. Southern Communication Journal, 74, 406-421.

263

Servaes, J. (1996). Introduction: Participatory communication and research in
development settings. In J. Servaes, T. L. Jacobson & S. A. White (Eds.),
Participatory communication for social change (pp. 13-25). New Delhi, India:
Sage.

Shome, R., & Hegde, R. S. (2001). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting
the terrain, engaging the intersection. Communication Theory, 12, 249-270.

Simmons, W.M. (2007). Participation and power: Civic discourses in environmental
policy decisions. Albany, NY. State University of New York Press.

Stewart, J., & Philipsen, G. (1984). Communication as situated accomplishment: The
cases of hermeneutics and ethnography. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt
(Eds.), Progress in communication sciences, (Vol. 5) (pp. 177-217). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.

Stohl, C. (2005). Globalization theory. In S. May & D. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging
organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp.
223-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Streeten, P. (1997). Nongovernmental organizations and development. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 554, 193-210.

Suar, D., Hota, L. B., & Sinha, H. (2006). Non-governmental organisations in rural
development. In M.C. Behera (Ed.), Globalising rural development: Competing
paradigms and emerging realities. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Ta’a, T. (1996). Traditional and modern cooperatives among the Oromo. In P.T.W.
Baxter, A. Hultin, & A. Triulzi (Eds.), Being and becoming Oromo: Historical
and anthropological enquires (pp. 202-211). Asmara, Eritrea: Red Sea Press.

Taylor, D. (2011). Introduction: Power, freedom and subjectivity. In D. Taylor (Ed.),
Michel Foucault: Key concepts (pp. 1-12). Durham, NC: Acumen.

Tegegn, M. (2010). Why Ethiopia remains poor: Structural and conjectural constraints
for the emergence of civil society in Ethiopia, 1991-2005. Saarbrucken, Germany:
LAP Lambert.

The World Bank. (1999). Nongovernmental organizations in World Bank-supported
projects. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.

The World Bank. (1999). The World Bank operational manual: The development grant
policy. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTOPMANUAL/Resources/
EntireOpManualExternal ?resourceurlname=EntireOpManualExternal

264

The World Bank. (2002). Empowering the poor: Engaging civil society in World Bank
operations. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/
WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/09/17/000090341_20030917133129/Render
ed/PDF/267230English0En0Breve0no10120Empowering

The World Bank. (2013, January). Ethiopia overview. Retrieved from
http://hdrstats.undp.org/images/explanations/ETH

Thiong’o, G.W. (1996). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African
literature. Nairobi, Kenya: EAEP.

Thomas, A. (2000). Poverty and the “end of development.” In T. Allen & A. Thomas
(Eds.), Poverty and development into the 21st century (pp. 3-22). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Thomas, B. (1980). The Harambe self-help experience in Kenya. Rural Development
Participation Review, 1(3), 1-5.

Townsend, R. M. (2004). Deliberation and democracy: Ethnography of rhetoric in a New
England town meeting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.

UNDP. (2009). Handbook on planning monitoring and evaluating for development
results. New York, NY: United Nations Development Program.

UNDP. (2011, November 10). Human Development Report 2011: Ethiopia. Retrieved
from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ethiopia/overview

United States Senate. (2006). Nongovernmental organizations and democracy promotion
“Giving voice to the people: A report to members of the committee on foreign
relations.” Retrieved from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

Vedder, A. (2007). Questioning the legitimacy of non-governmental organizations. In A.
Vedder (Ed.), NGO involvement in international governance and policy (pp. 1-
20). Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Vestal, T. M. (1999). Ethiopia: A post-cold war African state. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Vyas, H. M (1962). Preface. In M. K. Gandhi, Village Swaraj (pp. 5-15). Ahmedabad,
India: Navaivan.

Wa Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African
literature. Nairobi, Kenya: East African educational.

265

Walts, C. L. (2006). Ideographs and the war on terror: A criticism of George W. Bush’s
post-9/11 discourses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale.

Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism. Central States Speech
Journal, 34, 1-18.

Wells, G. J., Shuey, R., & Keely, R. (2001). Globalization. Huntington, NY: Novinka.

Werker, E., & Ahmed, F. Z. (2008). What do nongovernmental organizations do?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 73-92.

White, S.A. (1999). Participation: Walk the talk. In S.A. White (Ed.), The art of
facilitating participation: Releasing the power of grassroots communication (pp.
15-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wills, K. (2005). Theories and practical economic development. New York, NY:
Routledge.

World Bank. (1996). The World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington, D.C.:
World Bank.

World Vision International. (2007). Learning through evaluation with accountability and
planning: World Vision’s approach to design, monitoring and evaluation.
Washington, D.C: World Vision International.

World Vision International. (2011). World Vision international accountability report
2011. Retrieved from World Vision official website: http://www.wvi.org/our-
accountability/publication/2011-accountability-report

Zarefsky, D. (2006). Interdisciplinary perspectives on rhetorical criticism: Reflections on
rhetorical criticism. Rhetoric Review, 25, 383-387.

266

APPENDIX
Appendix A

Adult litracy program in one of the villages of the Oxfam working woreda

267

Appendix B

Adult litracy program in one of the villages of Oxfam working woreda

268

Appendix C
Executive members of Lelistu Self-help Association holding a meeting with Oxfam GB
staff and a local government expert

269

Appendix D
When the World Vision staff (right) was speaking, some participants appeared confused

270

Appendix E
Local militia men attending community meetings, carrying their AK-47 machine guns

Chart generated on June 5, 2014 based on data from the World Bank Group’s official website
(NB: 2014 excluded)
1989 66
1990 86
1991 93
1992 93
1994 169
1995 244
1996 225
1997 449
1998 349
1999 397
2000 436
2001 483
2002 513
2003 594
2004 553
2005 580
2006 516
2007 641
2008 696
2009 751
2010 872
2011 814
2012 782
2013 638
TOTAL 1104
Appendix F
Chart generated on June 5, 2014 based on data from the World Bank Group’s official website
11040
271

Chart generated on June 5, 2014 based on data from the World Bank Group’s official website

272

273

274

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 1

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 5

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 6

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 7

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 8

1 P14: Getachew (Community member) x – 14:1-4

�� ? �� ?
Answer:- ��
��
��
Question:- �� ?
Answer:- ��
��

Question:- �� ?
Answer:- �� 7 �� 6 ��
�� ’��’ ��

2 P19: Fikadu (Coffeee Union Leader) x – 19:1

Oxfam �� ?
�� 2009 ��
��
��
��
�� Resource
�� Oxfam ��
Oxfam ��

3 P23: Junedin (WV Community member) x – 23:1

�� - ��
�� - ��
��
��
�� /� ��
��/��/ ��
��
�� /��
��
�� /��
�� /��
��
4 P30: Ababiya (Community member) x – 30:4

��-��?��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 9

��-
��
��
��
��
��- ��?
��-
��
��

5 P24: Junedin (WV Community member) x – 24:1-2
�� ? ��
�� ?
��
��
�� ?
��
�� ?
�� /��/ �� 1 �� !
�� / ��/ ��
�� ? ��
��

�� ?
��
�� ?
�� ! ��
��
��

6
P23: Junedin (WV Community member) x – 23:3

�� ! � 1 � 5 �� 30 ��
��
�� /��/ ��
��
��
� 3 �� 4 ��
�� 1 � 5 ��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 10

�� ! ��
��

7
P21: Hussien Gnarie (WV Community member) x – 21:7

��
��?��
��
��? �� ? ��
��
��
8P38: Simret (Oxfam) x – 38:9

�� NGOs ��staffing�� local
�� appropriate �� staff selection
�� technically
�� limited �� resource
�� resource
��efficsent�� effective
�� assess �� establish
�� potential ��
technically �� staff
��
��
�� officer project manager �� remote
��accessable�� identify �� Oxfam
�� 3 �� 4 staff �� villages
�� villages level
��/��/�� leaders
��/��
�� NGO sector �� staff ��
grass root level capacity ��

9P46: Tilahun (World Vision) x – 46:10

��?
��?
��
��
��
��
��?
��
��

10P13: Zerihun (World Vision) x – 13:5

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 11

��
�� staff �� partners
��
��
��

11 P38: Simret x – 38:4

��
��
��
ownership �� manage, lead, own ��
��
��
��
�� nominal ��
��
��
��
��
�� sustainability impact ��
�� own �� manage
��
�� identify ��
�� own ��

12 P46: Tilahun (World Vision expert)

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

13 P 1: Anteneh (WVE expert) x – 1:12

commutity participation �� concept �� facilitate
��
��
��

��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 12

��
�� commit ��
��
�� NGO �� demand
�� skill demand ��
�� team ��
��
��

14 P46: Tilahun (WVE). Docx- 46:15

��
��
��
��
��

15 P 1: Anteneh (WVE) x – 1:5

�� 1986 �� community based technical program ��
�� facilitators �� 6 ��
participation need �� rehabilitation and development transition ��
�� cost effective �� sustain ��
�� then ��
�� actors �� practice �� cost
effective �� image ��
�� globally appreciate �� politically ��
��

16 P 1: Anteneh (WVE) x – 1:3

�� sustain ��
��
�� external �� existing values, norms,
individual and society needs ��

17 P13: Zerihun (WVE) x – 13:2

NGO �� Civil Organizations ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

18 P48: Solomon (Oxfam). docx – 48:3

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 13

��
��
��
��bylarge��
��indorse��10��
��assessment��indorse
��donors ��

19 P48: Fasil Abate x – 48:3
��claim��own�
��follwup��
��
communityparticipationdefien��
��own��
��
��action aid��

20 P38: Simret (Oxfam staff) x – 38:10

�Oxfam �intervention �� promote �� dialogs
�� forums establish �� forums establish
��
�� value chain ��
�� significant number ��
��
�� more saving culture ��
�� save �� revolve
�� apportunities �� facilitation role
�� more open up �� track
��

21 P35: Shemsiya (Oxfam staff) docx – 35:2

�� community ��
�� primary representatives ��
monitoring �� back
doners� doner� implementer organization �� representatives ��
�� monitoring ��
��

22 P13: Zerihun (World Vision) x – 13:7

��
��
��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 14

��
��
��
�� information ��
��
evaluation ��
��
��

23 P45: Abreham (World Vision ) x – 45:15

�� ADP context �� 5% ��
�� 5-7% ��
��
��
��
��
��

24 P 1: Anteneh (World Vision) x – 1:11

�� tention �� Resource ��
�� society ��
��
��
��
�� socity ��

25 P28: Wondwosen (World Vision) x – 28:7

��
��
��
��
�� NGO ��
�� NGO ��
��
��
��

26 P46: Tilahun (World Vision) x – 46:6

� ��
��
�� 3 ��
�� 2 �� 3 ��
��
��
��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 15

��
��
��
��
��
��

27P 9: Tolosa (Local gov’t Official) x – 9:1

Oxfam��
��
��
��
��

28P25: Teshome (Govenment expert) x – 25:1

�� (� community Development)
��
(�waterharvesting)��
��
��water
pamps��

29P44: Beyene (Govenment expert) x – 44:21
�� 1998 �� 2000
�.��
��
��
��?
��
��
��/��
��
�� 4
�� 3
�� 3 �� 10
��
��
��
��
�� 11
�� 11 ��
��
��
��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 16

�� NGO’s
��

30P 3: Hassen (Government official) x – 3:2

��
��
�� (��…)
��
��…
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

31 P21: Kedir (WV Community member) x – 21:8

�� - ��
�� /� ��
��
��
��
�� /��
��
��

32 P36: Sebokka (WV Community member) x – 36:7

��
�� 25� 50� 30� ��
��
��
��
��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 17

�� ?
��
��

33 P19: Fikadu (Coffeee Union Leader) x – 19:6

�� NGO Exvaluate ��
�� interest ��
��
�� interest ��
��
��
��

34 P25: Teshome (Govenment expert) x – 25:17

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�� (beneficiary select) �� 30 ��
��
��

35 P 1: Anteneh (World Vision) x – 1:9

�� innovetion
��
�� ADP �� ADP ��
��
��
��
�� cut ��
��
��
��

36 P28: Wondwosen (World Vision) x – 28:10

��
��
��
��
��

THE RHETORIC OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 18

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for….. (Due date – Sunday 28th January) ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now