Share This Article
Recent years have seen a shift in planning approaches; the concept of inclusivity is gaining traction in the urban planning discourse, policy agendas, and academic literature as well. Through participatory design workshops and gender-sensitive infrastructure planning, the concept of inclusivity is evolving from a term to a central tenet of sustainable urbanism. Despite its growing prominence, the question is whether this is a surge of interest in inclusivity, a genuine transformation, or a contemporary trend. As today’s urban societies confront social inequalities, the stakes of answering this question have never been higher.
The Concept of Inclusivity in Urban Planning
The concept of inclusivity in urban planning broadly involves the active recognition and integration of diverse identities, experiences, and needs in decision-making processes and spatial interventions. It is not just a monolithic idea, but rather it comprises three interlinked dimensions: spatial inclusivity, social inclusivity, and procedural inclusivity.
Spatial inclusivity is considered through physical accessibility and the equitable distribution of urban resources, such as housing, public infrastructure, and transportation, aligning with Henri Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of the right to the city, which argues that urban spaces should be collectively shaped by users, not just by designers or planners. Inclusive spatial design aims to dismantle barriers for historically excluded populations, with disabilities, women, low-income groups, and ethnic minorities (Soja, 2010).
Procedural inclusivity refers to the fairness and transparency of decision-making processes, ensuring that all community members, especially those marginalised, participate meaningfully in shaping their urban futures. Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) seminal Ladder of Citizen Participation remains a foundational framework for understanding citizen participation. In this, she critiques the tokenisation of public involvement, advocating instead for citizen power through partnership, delegated authority, and control. In this context, procedural inclusivity requires shifting from one-way consultations to co-production and collaborative governance, which are vital elements in inclusive city policies. (Legacy, 2017).
Lastly, social inclusivity encompasses the representation of cultural identities, local knowledge, and social values within planning frameworks. As Leonie Sandercock (2003) argues, planning is not a neutral or technical activity but a process embedded with power. Her theory of multicultural planning emphasizes the need for planners to recognize differences, embrace multiple narratives, and challenge dominant worldviews. This dimension is crucial in the context of Indigenous Planning in Australia, where inclusive practices decolonized processes, restoring land-based cultural knowledge (Porter, 2010).
Collectively, these dimensions form the foundational basis for inclusivity in urban planning, encompassing not only outcomes but also the ethical and political processes that guide who plans, decides, and benefits.
Challenges in Urban Development
With rhetorical commitments, the implementation of inclusive urban planning is often criticized for being superficial, co-opted, or skewed toward already privileged voices (Legacy, 2017). As an example, Melbourne’s community consultation on urban redevelopment projects, such as the Arden Precinct, faced backlash for tokenizing diverse voices while adhering to predetermined development agendas.
The Smart Cities Mission in India aimed to be particularly participatory; however, it bypassed slum communities in its processes, leading to displacement and further marginalization (Datta, 2015). Similarly, in Nairobi, informal settlement schemes struggled with designs failing to reflect local needs, resulting in community disengagement and spatial exclusion (Lines & Makau, 2017). This issue of a gap between the rhetoric of inclusion and the politics of urban governance, where the decision-making is still concentrated among technocrats, developers, and political elites.
Necessity of Inclusivity in Urban Planning
Moving beyond rhetoric and becoming a pillar for transformation in urban planning should demonstrate real-world values. Institutionalizing inclusive city policies, generating tangible improvements in equity, sustainability, and resilience.
One of the known cases is Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in the late 1980s. The process allowed citizens, from low-income groups and peripheral neighbourhoods, to influence municipal budgeting directly through yearly deliberative forums, which were identified and privatized. Communities identified and prioritized investments in infrastructure, sanitation, and education. The outcomes being tangible, the number of households with access to sewerage systems doubled between 1989 and 1996, and health and education spending increased in underserved locations (Baiocchi, 2005). Then, civic participation broadened among women and marginalized communities, and inclusivity in urban governance yields redistributive and democratic dividends. Today, this approach is a globally proven template for inclusive governance and decentralized decision-making (Cabannes, 2004).
Indigenous planning in Australia offers insights into how inclusive urban planning transcends Western paradigms. The Yolngu Nations Assembly in Arnhem Land plays a crucial role in developing culturally grounded planning frameworks that prioritize Indigenous law, kinship structures, and relationships to the Country (Porter & Barry, 2016). These models have rejected standardized land-use planning to favour relational planning, where Elders and community members act as core decision-makers. This approach advances with spatial justice and a decolonized planning process that embeds sovereignty and self-determination into land governance (Porter, 2010). In Indigenous planning, inclusivity is often limited to involving Indigenous voices while restricting power to reflect views and custodianship principles.
Also Read – Redrawing the Line: How Regional Indian Cities are Rethinking Urban Planning
Another case is the formal settlement upgrading initiatives led by Mahila Milan’s women’s collective in Pune, India. Responding to state-led redevelopment that displaced slum residents, partnered with NGO SPARC and local authorities in designing and implementing housing solutions tailored to the needs of the urban poor. Their community-led efforts produced low-cost, disaster-resilient homes, improved infrastructure, and empowered women, rather than making them passive residents (Appadurai, 2001). The process was based on procedural inclusivity, where planning knowledge was co-produced, and the state acted as a facilitator rather than a provider of knowledge. This case exemplifies how inclusive urban planning, centred on capacity building, co-design, and long-term engagement, yields outcomes that are context-sensitive and socially transformative (Patel & Miltlin, 2010).
These diverse cases share that inclusivity must be structured, not symbolic. Inclusivity limited to consultation workshops reinforces existing hierarchies rather than dismantling them. On the contrary, social and spatial inclusion, institutionalized through budgetary power-sharing, Indigenous governance, slum dweller partnerships, and planning, becomes a tool for equity, resilience, and justice. These approaches remind emerging professionals and policymakers that inclusive planning is not a utopian idea, but a necessity in the face of growing urban inequality, climate risk, and democratic deficit.
Conclusion
Is inclusivity in urban planning optional? The evidence suggests otherwise. In a world with challenges in urban development, from climate change to inequality, inclusion is not just an option; it is a necessity. Being beyond representation, inclusive city policies should redistribute power, promote cultural pluralism, and redesign systems reflecting diverse human and ecological realities. Ensuring that urban planning doesn’t replicate injustices, inclusivity should be understood not as a contemporary trend but as a long-term ethical practice, reshaping processes, power, and possibilities.
References
- Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
- Appadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics. Environment and Urbanisation, 13(2), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780101300203
- Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militant Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford University Press.
- Datta, A. (2015). New urban utopias of postcolonial India: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanisation’ in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614565748
- Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, 16(4), 425–442.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1473095216667433
- Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Blackwell Publishing.
- Lines, K., & Makau, J. (2017). Taking the long view: 20 years of Muungano wa Wanavijiji, the Kenyan federation of slum dwellers. Environment and Urbanisation, 29(1), 43–58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326824088_Taking_the_long_view_20_years_of_Muungano_wa_Wanavijiji_the_Kenyan_federation_of_slum_dwellers
- Porter, L., & Barry, J. (2016). Planning for Coexistence? Recognising Indigenous Rights through Land-Use Planning in Canada and Australia. Routledge.
- Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities of the 21st Century. Continuum.