Leveraging community capitals for sustainable urban development in Kenya: Evidence from invisible architects

Abstract

Introduction: Formal urban planning and infrastructure systems are failing to adapt to rapid population growth and shifting economic demands, leaving about 61% of the world’s workers to operate in the informal sector. These workers contribute significantly to urban life, yet their transformative potential for sustainable urban development remains invisible and untapped by mainstream planning. This research focuses on community capitals, a less documented but essential driver of informal operations. This study explored how informal workers utilize community capitals to transform urban spaces into sustainable communities in Kenya. We demonstrated how these community capitals catalyzed sustainable urban growth.

Methods: This qualitative study explored the community capitals framework (CCF) in an urban context, addressing the limitations of quantitative data regarding the CCF, which often overlooks critical social factors. This research team conducted in-depth interviews with 36 informal service providers from the education, healthcare, water, sanitation, and solid waste management sectors. Additionally, four local leaders from two urban informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, were interviewed. The data from the transcripts were analyzed using thematic framework analysis, guided by the community capitals framework.

Results: We identified seven forms of community capitals that benefit informal workers: natural, cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built. The study revealed that human capital, focusing on individual skills and qualities, was most often mentioned and valued, while social capital, which concerns connections and relationships, was the second most frequent. Despite being the least implemented, cultural capital was identified as valuable for representing community knowledge and traditions. Examples of these capitals in action included solid waste workers, manual pit emptiers, education providers, health workers, and water service providers, who all contributed to urban development and well-being through waste management, sanitation, education, healthcare, and access to clean water.

Conclusion: Service providers use community capitals as a planning tool to understand dynamics, refine strategies, and build trust for urban development. Each form of community capital functions as a shared resource that provides both immediate support and future development opportunities for the community. Despite that cultural capital was identified as a priority by the few participants, it warrants further research to explore its drivers. Additional research is required to fully grasp the relationships among the various capitals and their impact on service delivery.