A review of Community Participation:
Motivators and Barriers
Sarah Lange
Literature Review submitted as part requirement for the
Master of Arts in Professional Practice
(Sustainable Development Advocacy)
University of Worcester
July 2012
Contents
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
2. What is Community? ............................................................................................................ 6
3. Sustainable Communities .................................................................................................... 7
4. Community Participation ..................................................................................................... 10
5. Motivators for Participation ................................................................................................. 14
5.1 Social Capital ................................................................................................................. 14
5.2 Who Participates............................................................................................................ 15
5.3 The need to belong ....................................................................................................... 16
5.4 Identity ............................................................................................................................. 17
5.5 Shared goals .................................................................................................................. 17
5.6 Friendship ....................................................................................................................... 18
5.7 Housing Tenure ............................................................................................................. 18
6. Barriers to participation ....................................................................................................... 19
6.1 Fear of exclusion ........................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Bureaucracy ................................................................................................................... 20
6.3 Socioeconomic group ................................................................................................... 20
6.4 Gender ............................................................................................................................ 21
6.5 Disability .......................................................................................................................... 22
6.6 Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................... 22
6.7 Power and privilege ....................................................................................................... 23
6.8 Disassociated ................................................................................................................. 24
7. Why is inclusive participation important? ......................................................................... 24
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 26
References ................................................................................................................................ 27
2
Figures
Figure 1: Sustainable Development Model......................................................5
Figure 2: Sustainable Communities.................................................................8
Figure 3: Participation Pathways....................................................................13
3
Summary
This review examines the literature relating to community participation and why
this is so important to the sustainable development agenda. It aims to increase
understanding of what communities are and more importantly what sustainable
communities are, linking into sustainable development research. It has
particularly focused on the motivators and the barriers to individual’s
participation within their communities. Much of the research comes from the
sociology or the social psychology field which can be defined as:‘the scientific investigation of how the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of
individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others’
(Hogg & Vaughan 2011, p 35)
4
1. Introduction
Sustainable development is defined by DEFRA as:‘enabling people to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life
without compromising the quality of life of future generations’
(DEFRA 2010, p5)
Sustainable development focuses on 3 core areas; Environment, Economy and
Social (Lozano 2008). These are often represented by 3 overlapping circles as
Figure 1 demonstrates with sustainability found at the centre:-
Social
Sustainability
Environment
Economy
Figure 1: Sustainable Development Model
(Adapted from Lozano 2008)
Each of these areas are sometimes viewed as separate entities and are studied
and written about as individual topics by researchers and campaigners. This
separatist way of looking at the areas gives the illusion that they are all equally
important (Crompton & Kasser 2009).
Considering that without a healthy
planet, an economy or a social existence may prove impossible (Spratt et al
5
2010) then maybe the portrayal should be viewed as 3 concentric circles with
the environment as the one everything else has to fit within. The 3 areas are
intertwined - people (social) as individuals and as a group interact daily with the
economy and the environment. Decisions people take impact across all areas.
Without understanding communities and the people within them sustainable
development may not be achieved.
The international interest in sustainable development followed the United
Nations adoption of Agenda 21 in 1992(Brodie et al 2009). One of the concepts
was the importance of greater participation, from a democratic point of view, on
a local, national and international level which would lead to greater social
change (ibid).
2. What is Community?
The notion of community is largely considered a ‘good thing’ conjuring up
images of shared identity, cohesiveness and a sense of belonging (Gilchrist
2003). Paradoxically communities are also seen as places where social
problems exist and where they can be resolved (Lynn 2006).
Peoples sense of community stems from a sense of being linked into networks
of family, friends, social groups and community organisations (Ennis & West
2010). A ‘well connected community’ is one which has strong internal
connections but also has links with people and organisations outside of its
boundaries, its edges are permeable allowing ideas, information and resources
to flow both ways (Gilchrist 2000). A community is also considered a well
connected community if it ‘tolerates difference, celebrates diversity, promotes
equality and acknowledges mutuality’ (Gilchrist 2000 p272). In contrast, a
homophilous community is one that has strong bonds but is closed to the
outside world (Newman & Dale 2005). These communities or groups are often
made up of the same ‘type’ of people in relation to areas such as age, sex,
class, race or occupation which limits peoples world view (ibid).
6
A well connected community can provide an alternative to the individualism that
is the product of our neo-liberal economic system but the community’s ability to
provide assistance can be exploited by government and utilised to absolve them
from having to provide social infrastructure (Lynn 2006).
3. Sustainable Communities
How you define sustainable communities will depend on whether you are
coming from it from a political / policy angle an environmentalist /sustainable
development angle or a personal/ individual angle. The political / policy angle is
the area that has been most written about and will be largely the focus of this
review.
The UK policy concept of sustainable communities came out of the 2003 New
Labour launch of their Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM 2003). In this
document the Government state that ‘the way our communities develop
economically, socially and environmentally must respect the needs of future
generations as well as succeeding now’ (ODPM, 2003, p5). On closer
inspection this document is really about regenerating urban and rural poor
neighbourhoods and the only mention of ‘green’ issues are around expanding
the range of green spaces or protecting green belt land rather than anything
about sustainable resource use. The political or policy agenda was largely
around deprivation and how to encourage the inclusion of the excluded into
mainstream society with a focus on urban areas (Greene 2005).
The policy concept of sustainable communities was further developed by the
Egan Review in 2004 which defines sustainable communities as follows;
‘sustainable communities meet the diverse needs of existing and future
residents, their children and other users, contribute to a high quality of life and
provide opportunity and choice. They achieve this in ways that make effective
use of natural resources, enhance the environment, promote social cohesion
and inclusion and strengthen economic prosperity’
7
(The Egan Review, 2004, p18)
Figure 2 demonstrates the 8 aspirations this review highlighted were essential
for sustainable communities:-
Social and cultural:
Vibrant, harmonious
and inclusive
communities
Housing and the
built environment:
A quality built and
natural
environment
Governance:
Effective and
inclusive
particpation,
representation
and leadership.
SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES
Economy:
A flourishing
and diverse
local economy.
Transport and
Connectivity:
Good tranpsort
services and
communication
linking people to
jobs, schools, health
and otehr services
Services:
A full range of
appropriate,
accessible, public,
private, community
and voluntary
services
Environmental:
Providing places
for people to live
in an
environmentally
friendly way
Figure 2: Sustainable Communities
(Adapted from The Egan Review, 2004, p 19)
Within the environmental strand, sub component areas such as resource use,
recycling, use of public transport and air quality are mentioned but it is harder to
8
see how these areas have been encouraged from a policy point of view over the
years. The authors own experience of Neighbourhood Renewal, New Deal for
Communities, Neighbourhood Management and SureStart has only ever seen
the policy focused on the immediate environmental concerns of things like litter
and access to green spaces.
It is our urban areas that are creating the vast amounts of waste, are consuming
vast quantities of fossil fuels, are omitting ozone depleting compounds and are
giving the economic incentive for agricultural land and forests to be cleared
(Roseland 2000). Movements such as the Transition movement talk about
resilient communities, those that are moving towards a low carbon future, with
local food production and are regaining lost skills (Transition Network 2011).
Struggling communities that are still focused on basic needs of housing, food
and employment may be too internally focused to be able to see their role in
environmental change (Prochaska 1999). It is important to remember that
people are the primary resource in any community(Ennis and West 2012).The
Egan Review lists a number of sub components within the social and cultural
section which could be argued are still important today as a sound base for all
sustainable communities:
‘A sense of community identity and belonging

Tolerance, respect and engagement with people from different cultures,
backgrounds and beliefs

Friendly, co-operative and helpful behaviours in neighbourhoods

Opportunities for cultural, leisure, community, sport and other activities

Low levels of crime and anti-social behaviour with visible, effective and
community friendly policing

All people are socially included and have similar life opportunities’
(Egan 2004, p20)
9
The current coalition Government has continued the policy interest in
sustainable communities and this has been translated into their ‘new’ idea ‘The
Big Society’ with its social action element defined as:‘encouraging and enabling people to play a more active part in society. National
Citizen Service, Community Organisers and Community First will encourage
people to get involved in their communities.’
(Cabinet Office no date)
Gilchrist (2000) argues that developing a sustainable community requires
increasing
three
core
elements:
participation
in
community
activities,
strengthening of the local democratic processes and a growth of informal
networks.
4. Community Participation
The term ‘participation’ can be used in many different ways and is often used
interchangeably with words such as involvement, engagement or prefixed with
civil, community or public (Brodie et al 2009). There are three broad categories
of community participation:
Individual – signing petitions, boycotting products (Brodie et al 2009),
neighbourliness, ‘doing a favour’ (Williams 2011)

Community or social participation – being a member of a community
group, association, club, volunteering, running a church group (Brodie et
al 2009)

Public participation – this can also be referred to as political or civic and
includes voting in elections, taking part in consultations or being a local
councillor (Brodie et al 2009).
10
Community participation could therefore be defined as:‘any activity which involves spending time, unpaid, doing something which aims
to benefit someone(individuals or groups) other than close relatives, or to
benefit the environment’
(Williams 2005 p 31)
This definition covers all three of the categories; individual, social and public
and it should be noted that many people participate at all three levels over the
course of their lives (Brodie et al 2011).
Government policy has tended to focus more on public participation and often
seems to only value those people that are involved at this level,
misunderstanding the importance of valuing all levels (Green & Brock 2005).
Studies distinguish between ‘formal’ and therefore mature involvement in
community groups and ‘informal’ and immature involvement in one-to-one aid
(Williams 2005). This makes the concept of community participation appear
hierarchical whereas Williams (2005) believes it should be more of a spectrum
of activity. This spectrum of activity should not be seen as linear as people take
part in different things at different times of their lives and appear to follow no set
pattern of participation (Brodie et al 2011). This widely accepted hierarchal
notion leads to formal or public involvement being greater valued by
Government policy (Williams 2005). It could be argued that people place a
greater value on formal group activity and therefore members of the community
who do not engage in formal group activity are not as valued as those who do
(ibid).
One of DEFRA’s (2010) sustainable community indicators is the rate of
participation through formal and informal volunteering in communities. This
classification does not take into account Brodie et al (2009) individual level of
participation and could therefore be seen as a narrow definition. Some
communities often state they have low levels of community participation
because they are using a narrow definition of membership of civic societies or
formal groups only (Williams 2005). Some of these same communities often
11
state that people from certain areas are not engaging in community life but
Lichterman (1995) states this is because people from low income groups have a
different sense of community which does not involve civic societies that they
feel exclude them.
Government policy over the last 3 decades has failed to pay sufficient attention
to community participation in its own right rather than as a vehicle for delivering
government
initiatives.
Therefore
informal
networks
and
grass
roots
organisations have not been funded or supported and have therefore not been
strengthened (Gilchrist 2003).
Participation is important as communities with high levels of participation have
greater trust, lower crime levels, better health and they vote more often (Porritt
2007). It has been suggested that people are choosing to disengage from public
participation because they feel there are more effective ways to make a
difference in their communities (Ockenden 2007). It is interesting to note that
37% of people who claimed they did not vote in elections were members of ,or
active in, a community group, a charity, a campaigning organisation or a public
body (Power Inquiry 2006).
People participate through a range of avenues but many participate through
membership of a group. A group has been defined by Johnson and Johnson
(1987) cited by Hogg & Vaughan (2011: p274) as:‘two or more individuals in face to face interaction, each aware of his or her
membership to the group, each aware of the others who belong to the group,
and each aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to achieve
mutual goals’.
Figure 3 demonstrates the many different pathways through participation, the
varying times of people’s lives, the places they participate, what activities they
do and the range of dimensions that are involved. A range of motivators and
barriers can affect people and their participation and these will be looked at in
the next 2 chapters.
12
Places
Home
Life Stages
Individual
Childhood
participatory
Youth
practice
Outdoor spaces
Formal –
informal
Institutions
Paid-unpaid
Community
organisations
Occasionalregular
Workplace
One off- ongoing
Retail
Individual –
collective
Early adulthood
Late adulthood
Local-global
Activities
Public participation
Old age
Multiple
Dimensions
Campaigning,
advocacy & direct
action
Online- offline
Self interestaltruism
Active-passive
Services to others &
environment
Memberorganiser
Mutual aid/ self help
Instrumentaltransformative
Fundraising and
giving
Ethical consumerism
Serious leisure
Consultativeempowering
Proactivereactive
Driving changeresisting change
Figure 3. Particpation Pathways
(Adapted from Brodie et al 2009, p42)
13
5. Motivators for Participation
The reasons people participate cover a diverse range of factors including; life
stages, cultural background, socio economic factors such as education and
income level as well as opportunities to be involved and simply a personal
desire to be involved (Low et al 2007). Much of the research in this area has
been carried out in the formal volunteering world of social welfare and the public
participation fields rather than within community participation (Brodie et al
2009).
5.1 Social Capital
Human beings have harnessed the natural world for their own gain over the
millennia (Porritt 2007). Perhaps one of our greatest strengths was the
realisation that we were more productive when organised in groups rather than
working as individuals. Humans have taken this way of organising to complex
levels of legal, political and financial systems with cultural institutions for sport,
arts and entertainment as well as informal networks within communities – this is
social capital (Porritt 2007; Green & Brock 2005; Newman & Dale 2005).
Social capital contains an implicit belief that working in groups or networks is a
better way of effecting change compared to individual effort (Newman & Dale
2005). It is this idea that is harnessed in Transition Towns and the creation of
networks as a way of addressing local sustainability issues and wider global
concerns (Transition Network 2011). Networks are constructive as they are
based on trust and reciprocity and the more formal and informal networks the
greater the trust within the community (Lowndes 2006).
14
Communities with good stocks of social capital have:
High levels of trust

High membership of civic, religious and informal groups

High levels of volunteering

Low crime rates

High educational attainment

Improved health
(Porritt 2007)
Governments have become more interested in social capital, as high stocks of
social capital can be used to save money and reduce services (Porritt 2007).
Publishing in 2007 he perhaps did not realise how poignant this statement
would be with the recession just one year later. Little would he know that in
October 2010 the newly installed coalition government would deliver a
Comprehensive Spending Review that was considered by many to be extremely
damaging to poor people by reducing public sector spending and thus services
to communities (Dorling 2011).
5.2 Who Participates
Different types of people participate to varying degrees across a range of
activities and across their life times (Brodie et al 2009; Low et al 2007). Many
myths have existed about certain groups not participating whether that be
through age, gender, ethnicity or socio economic group and some of these
issues are set out in the following sections of this review.
Levels of formal volunteering are highest in the 35 – 64 age bracket and more
women (64%) than men (54%) are likely to be involved (Low et al 2007).
Whereas older people (over 65’s) take part more often in democratic elections
(Power Inquiry 2006). Rural older people participate more in formal volunteering
and community participation than their urban counterparts (Kneale 2011). This
15
appears to be connected to higher level of deprivation in urban areas with
access to transport, concerns about safety and poor health all given as
explanations for lower engagement (ibid).
Adults whose parents participated whilst they were children often demonstrate
higher levels of community participation. Belonging to organisations like the
Scouts and Guides can lead to higher levels of formal participation in adulthood
(Brodie et al 2009).
As the UK’s population ages a two - fold need is being created, participation is
needed to support the aging population as well as participation being needed
from the retired(Merrill 2007). A greater understanding of the motivations for
participation may help to support this as a growth area of participation.
5.3 The need to belong
It is a basic and universal human desire to belong (Baumeister & Leary 1995).
In evolutionary terms this has been beneficial for survival, finding food, caring
for children and protection against predators are all best accomplished within a
group rather than individually(ibid).
Hogg & Vaughan (2011) states that we all belong to groups via a range of non
choice factors such as our gender, ethnicity, language spoken, religion or the
country we live in. There are of course groups we choose to be part of such as
social groups, family groups and task groups.
Human beings suffer psychologically if they do not have strong social bonds
(Perlman & Peplau 1984). Research demonstrates that married people live
longer than unmarried or widowed ones and are healthier overall (Baumeister &
Leary 1995). Prison has long been used as a punishment with solitary
confinements being the ultimate punishment we inflict on people. Soldiers are
less likely to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder if they perceive
themselves to have high support levels(ibid). Evidence has also demonstrated
that the Commons dilemma (people using up renewable resources for short
16
term gain) is reduced if belongingness is increased (Newman & Dale 2005). All
these factors demonstrate the value of belonging.
5.4 Identity
Identity refers to people’s sense of themselves, how they view the world, how
they live their lives (Crompton & Kasser 2009). People derive a high level of self
esteem from group membership which gives them a positive identity (Amiot &
Hornsey 2010). People often feel a sense of uncertainty and being part of a
group can give them a strong sense of identity and help them to feel more
comfortable (Hogg 2012; Hohman et al 2010). The group has a set of known
and accepted way to behave and this makes most people feel much more
comfortable with themselves as the rules are clear. Hogg (2012) states that the
higher the entitativity; what makes the group groupy; the lower the level of
uncertainty that a person feels. He suggests that low entitativity groups, those
with ambiguous membership, no clear rules, and little agreement on group
attributes all do little to fend off uncertainty making people feel uncomfortable.
Transition Town groups often follow this model, with no leadership, such a wide
inclusion agenda that anything goes and no desire to tell people what to do that
the group can lead to fragmentation and disillusionment (Connors & McDonald
2010)
5.5 Shared goals
A shared goal is the recognition that to achieve the goal a larger number of
people working interdependently are more likely to achieve success (Hogg &
Vaughan 2011). Goals that people share can be both extrinsic and intrinsic
(Crompton and Kasser 2009). Extrinsic goals tend to be those that focus on
status, wealth, rewards and achievements whereas intrinsic goals are focused
17
on a sense of belonging in a community, self acceptance and affiliation (ibid). If
people are concerned about environmental issues they are likely to join an
environmental or conservation group as they recognise that action amongst a
group of like minded people is likely to achieve more than a lone actor (Hogg &
Vaughan 2011).
5.6 Friendship
Many people join groups for the sheer pleasure of friendship (Hogg 2011).
Another way of viewing this is people participate in a range of activities within
their communities to avoid loneliness (Perlman & Peplau 1984). Loneliness is
associated with poor mental health and depression and people experiencing it
tend to have fewer social contacts (ibid).
Closely linked to friendship as a motivator for participating is ‘word of mouth’ or
simply ‘being asked’. Many people start participating because someone they
know has simply told them about the opportunity(Lowndes 2006; Low et al
2007). People generally feel more comfortable getting involved if someone they
know is offering support and guidance (ibid).
5.7 Housing Tenure
Whether a person owns, privately rents or is a social tenant has an impact on
their rates of participation. People who own their own house take part in more
community and voluntary participation than do people in rented accommodation
(Wallace 2010). People who own their own houses are perceived to have
greater financial inclusion in society, more choice and more opportunities in the
future(Bramley & Kofi Karley 2007).
18
6. Barriers to participation
The experience of ‘community’ is inherently considered a desirable aspect of
society but this hides the many perceived and real tensions lying just below the
surface (Gilchrist 2003). The range of groups, clubs and societies that exist
within a community often reflect the prevailing cultural norms and can therefore
perpetuate the existing inequalities such as power and privilege (Gilchrist 2000).
Groups and associations can also exist for what many would not consider to be
for the public good such as the British National Party, but thought has to be
given to whose definition of ‘public good’ is used? (Carothers 2000). Having
clean air can be seen as a ‘public good’ but then so can low energy bills (ibid).
Although many of these groups or engagement opportunities appear to be open
to all there are a range of barriers to why people may not take part in
community activities (Brodie et al 2009; Rai 2008; Low et al 2007). The barriers
to engagement have been much researched and this is often utilised by
professionals working with communities to try to increase participation. Many
people running local community groups are often not trained community
development professionals and therefore may not be aware of the structural,
societal or personal barriers to participation.
6.1 Fear of exclusion
Being excluded lowers your sense of identity and belongingness as well as
reducing your self esteem and for some people reduces their sense of
meaningful existence (Nezlek et al 2012).
Many people fear that they will not be accepted by a group and this fear of real
or perceived exclusion can stop them from participating in the first place (ibid).
This fear can also lead people, who disagree with the group decision, to
conform for fear of being disapproved of and alienated by the group and thus
their participation is not inclusive (Hogg & Vaughan2011).
19
Within groups, members may exclude someone who is not behaving as the
group requires causing everyone anxiety, and exclusion from the group gives
everyone back their identity (ibid). This form of exclusion is particularly common
in adolescent groups (Wolfer et al 2012).
6.2 Bureaucracy
For many people a major barrier to participation is the fear of overly complex
bureaucracy particularly in the formal volunteering category (Low et al 2007). As
many volunteering opportunities are in the social care sector, organisations
have to be mindful of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults and therefore
references and criminal record bureau checks are an essential part of the
recruitment process along with interviews for the positions. The complex
bureaucracy and hierarchical structures are often also given as barriers to
participating in the public arena (Rai 2008). Public participation often involves
formal meetings, possibly held in formal venues such as Town Halls, recording
of minutes, public speaking and rules on how to behave (Rai 2008; Lowndes et
al 2006). Bureaucratic processes act as barriers particularly to people from
lower socio economic groups who often have a lower educational level and
have limited experience of these structures within their lives (Low et al 2007).
6.3 Socioeconomic group
The socio economic group a person belongs to has an impact on the level and
type of participation they are involved in (Brodie et al 2009).Using the narrow
definition of community participation as belonging to formal community groups
then in deprived areas only 7% of unemployed people in the 2000 General
Household Survey had been actively involved in a local organisation compared
to 29% of people from more affluent areas (Williams 2005). Widening the
definition to include ‘doing a favour for a neighbour’, then the difference
20
between socio economic groups is lessened, with 67% from deprived areas and
78% from more affluent areas participating (ibid).
Government policy has funded and encouraged the more formal ‘public’
definition of participation as a way to engage some of the most economically
deprived community (Brodie et al 2009). Research has demonstrated that more
deprived communities have a reciprocity culture and when these forms of one to
one engagement are counted as participation they have similar engagement
rates to more affluent areas (Williams 2011; Merrill 2007). Community workers
and social activists working in more deprived communities should not try and
engage people in groups but should look at mutual exchange schemes with an
informal structure (Williams 2011). Continuing to parachute in a form of
participation that is foreign to the community, then accusing them of being ‘hard
to reach’ is not a supportive way forward to improve participation rates and
demonstrates a weak understanding of community.
People from lower socio economic groups often have less access to resources
and practical support making participation difficult (Brodie et al 2009). A simple
lack of money, access to transport, childcare support plus a lack of knowledge
of how to get involved can all be barriers to participation (Low et al 2007).
6.4 Gender
Gender is still an issue in modern Britain with only 22% of MP’s being women
and 30.6 % of local authority councillors (Hansard Society 2012). In 2011 only
12.5% of directors in FTSE 100 Boards were women (Dolder et al 2012).
Women from more deprived backgrounds often experience low self confidence
which acts as a barrier to their participation (Greene 2005). Low educational
attainment and a lack of a voice as well as caring responsibilities can make it
difficult for women to get involved (ibid).
21
Further barriers impact on women with disabilities or women of colour who often
feel greater alienation as well as experiencing discrimination and stereotyping
than white able bodied women (Rai 2008; Low et al 2007).
Paradoxically more women (64%) than men (54%) take part in formal
volunteering within the community and this is linked to the fact that much formal
volunteering is in the social welfare field which has greater links to feminine
stereotypes(Low et al 2007). However, women are far less represented in the
public participation arenas and this could be linked to societal values placed on
the different types of participation (Green & Brock 2005).
6.5 Disability
Disability impacts in a range of ways including access to venues, being hidden
in the community, activity is not appropriate for those with learning difficulties or
other participant’s uncomfortableness with mental health issues (Verdonschot et
al 2009). Staff working in residential accommodation can operate as
gatekeepers to participation as their support and interest is vital to the
individual’s ability to participate (ibid). This can also apply to family members
who are carers.
6.6 Ethnicity
The level and type of participation are all impacted on by a person’s ethnicity
(Low et al 2007). Black women do not generally experience any negative
responses from their own or the wider community when they become involved
in public participation whereas women from Asian backgrounds have
experienced greater issues due to negative stereotyping and cultural norms
(Rai 2008). In formal volunteering studies Asian communities are found to be
22
less engaged whereas over a range of informal and formal volunteering the
ethnic division was less clear (Low et al 2007).
Studies have also examined people religious affiliations to their participation
rates and Hindu’s make up the largest formal volunteering group at 61%
closely followed by those of the Christian faith at 59%(ibid).
6.7 Power and privilege
All groups have unequal distributions of power, where some people are leaders
and others followers, even friendship groups experience this (Hogg & Vaughan
2011). A leader in a group plays a powerful role in making members feel certain
about their identity. Leaders of groups can use their positions to exert power
over its members and encourage particular decision making. As humans being
have a strong sense of identity and a need to belong(see 5.3 & 5.4) these can
be exploited. This need is often caused by feelings of uncertainty (Hogg &
Vaughan 2011) and this can be exploited by leaders. Politicians are good
examples of this exploitation. In the run up to elections they use people’s fears
or uncertainties over issues such as terrorism or the weak economy to
encourage them to vote for their ‘group’ (Hohman et al 2010). This can backfire,
as if a leader has not been identified by the individual as someone they have
strong bonds with the individual will go and join another group (ibid).
Individuals or minorities within groups can also exert power and influence and
can be the social change agents. Minority organisations like Green Peace are
good examples of this. They are small in active members but exert a lot of
influence over society (Hogg & Vaughan2011).
23
6.8 Disassociated
People living in deprived areas often have negative feeling towards the area
they live in (Greene 2005). These people are often keen to move away from the
area and therefore they do not want to play any part in trying to improve it
(Greene 2005). They feel that any association with the area is negative and
they purposely make a choice to not participate (ibid). Disassociation can be
linked with housing tenure (Bramley & Kofi Karley 2007). Owner occupiers have
a financial stake in the area and therefore often have a strong association
compared to social tenants (Wallace 2010).
7. Why is inclusive participation important?
Many of the groups that people participate in are covered by the Equality Act
2010 (Home Office no date). Businesses, public sector services, voluntary
sectors organisations and formal associations all have a legal duty to comply
with the Equality Act 2010. The act covers a range of protective factors, which
can not be used to treat people unfairly or in some cases requires a reasonable
adjustment to be made (ibid). These factors are:
Age

Disability

Gender reassignment

Marriage and civil partnership

Pregnancy and maternity

Race

Religion or belief

Sex

Sexual orientation
(Home Office no date).
24
This Act is designed to protect and support people so they are able to access
services and leisure opportunities without fear of discrimination, however, it is
complex. The guide for associations, clubs and societies is 97 pages
long(Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011) and people participating in
their communities are not always aware of such legal processes and
requirements and have received no training to guide them.
Inclusive participation should not just be about complying with legal processes,
inclusive participation in its own right should be valued. Communities benefit
enormously when people participate without gender, age, race, religion or
socio-economic bias (Merrill 2007). The benefits go beyond the immediate
community and impact on the sustainable development agenda (Newman &
Dale 2005). By participating in their community, peoples intrinsic values, their
concern about family, friends and the wider community are strengthened
(Crompton & Kasser 2010). Research has shown that the more people prioritise
intrinsic values the more concern they show for environmental issues (ibid).
Therefore communities with high levels of community participation could lead
the way in furthering the sustainable development agenda.
25
8. Conclusion
It has been suggested that the way to embed and progress the sustainable
development agenda is through communities. For communities to be able to
hear these messages they have to be attuned to an intrinsic value base not a
neo liberal extrinsic one. Intrinsic values can be enhanced though community
participation as it supports the creation of social networks which is social
capital. There are a range of barriers to engaging with community participation.
These barriers often reflect the inequalities within our wider society. Inequalities,
including but not exclusively, of power and privilege, gender or ethnicity,
disability and education are common within our communities. To ensure that the
future does not reflect the past these barriers need to be recognised,
acknowledged and addressed. The different forms of engagement common in
many ‘deprived’ communities need to be valued equally alongside other more
accepted forms of engagement. This is the way to ensure a more inclusive,
egalitarian future living within planetary boundaries.
26
References
Amiot, C.E. & Hornsey, M. J. (2010) Collective Self-esteem Contingency and its
Role in Predicting Intergroup Bias. Self and Identity.[Online] 9, 62-86. Available
from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=10&sid=b51fd8a6-802c-4e9a-b86b-c1ee10ca0e1a%40sessionmgr10
[Accessed 30th June 2012]
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995) The Need to belong: Desire for
Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological
Bulletin. [Online] 117 (3) 497 -529. Available from:
http://presidentsleadershipinstitute.org/images/uploads/ca_files/Week%202%20
-%20FUNDAMENTAL%20NEED%20TO%20BELONG.pdf [Accessed 25th
March 2012]
Bramley, G & Kofi Karley, N (2007) Homeownership, Poverty and Educational
Achievements: School Effects as Neighbourhood Effects. Housing Studies.
[Online] 22 (5) 693 – 721. Available from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hi
d=9&sid=327e4b11-fe92-42ab-9417-bfdd464b48e6%40sessionmgr14
[Accessed 30th June 2012]
Brodie, E, Cowling, E & Nissen, N (2009) Understanding Participation: A
Literature Review [Online] National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Available
from:
http://www.ivr.org.uk/images/stories/Institute-of-Volunteering-
Research/Migrated-Resources/Documents/U/Pathways-literature-review-finalversion.pdf [Accessed 8th June 2012]
Brodie, E., Hughes, T., Jochum, V., Miller, S., Ockenden, N & Warburton, D.
(2011) Pathways Through Participation: What creates and sustains active
citizenship. [Online] National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Available
from:
http://pathwaysthroughparticipation.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/Pathway
27
s-Through-Participation-final-report_Final_20110913.pdf [Accessed 28th June
2012]
Cabinet Office (no date) Big Society Overview. [Online] Available from:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/big-society-overview
[Accessed
2nd
June 2012]
Carothers, T (2000) Civil Society. Foreign Policy Magazine, Winter 1999 – 2000
[Online] Winter 1999-2000. Available from:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/CivilSociety.pdf [Accessed 27th June
2012]
Connors, P & McDonald, P (2011) Transitioning communities: community,
participation and the Transition Town Movement. Community Development
Journal [Online] 46 (4) 558-572. Available from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/citmgr?gca=cdj;46/4/558
[Accessed 29th February 2012]
Crompton, T & Kasser, T (2009) Meeting Environmental Challenges: The Role
of Human Identity. [Online] World Wildlife Fund. Godalming. Available from:
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/meeting_environmental_challenges___the_
role_of_human_identity.pdf accessed [Accessed 25th March 2010]
DEFRA (2010) Measuring progress: Sustainable Development Indicators
[Online]
Available
from:
http://sd.defra.gov.uk/documents/SDI2010_001.pd
[Accessed 28th November 2011]
Dolder, E., Vinnicombe, S., Gaughan, M. & Sealy, R (2012) Gender Diversity on
Boards: The Appointment Process and the role of Executive Search Firms
[Online] Equality and Human Rights Commission. Research Report 85.
Manchester.
Available
from:
http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-
content/media/news/EHRCGenderdiversityonBoards.pdf [Accessed 28th June
2012]
Dorling, D (2011) Injustice: why social inequality persists. Bristol. The Polity
Press.
28
Egan, J (2004) The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities [Online]
Office for Deputy Prime Minister, London, RIBA Enterprises Ltd. Available from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/152086.pdf
[Accessed 20th February 2012]
Ennis, G & West, D (2012) Using social network analysis in community
development practice and research: a case study. Community Development
Journal [Online] Advance Access. Available from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/content/early/2012/05/09/cdj.bss01
3.full.pdf+html [Accessed 15th June 2012]
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) What equality law means for
your association, club or society. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/service_provide
rs_association__club__society.pdf [Accessed 30th June 2012]
Gilchrist, A (2000) The well-connected community: networking t the ‘edge of
chaos’. Community Development Journal. [Online] 35 (3) 264-275. Available
from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/content/35/3/264.full.pdf+html?sid=
9a1e0bda-8af1-4098-ab5c-4aed51d88f36 [Accessed 25th June 2012]
Gilchrist, A (2003) Community development in the UK-possibilities and
paradoxes. Community Development Journal [Online] 38 (1) 16-25. Available
from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/content/38/1/16.full.pdf+html?sid=f
bd17699-0af1-47b7-8ed2-422bf6eb4d48 [Accessed 25th June 2012]
Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2005) Organisational Membership versus informal
action: Contributions to skills and perceptions that build social capital. Political
Psychology. [Online] 26 (1) 1-28. Available from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=8&sid=765e9426-c452-4213-896d-4602fe07c107%40sessionmgr12
[Accessed 26th June 2012]
29
Greene, S (2005) Including Young Mothers: Community-based participation and
the continuum of active citizenship. Community Development Journal [Online]
42(2), 167-180. Available from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/content/42/2/167.full.pdf+html
[Accessed 25th March 2012]
Hansard Society (2012) Women at the Top: Politics and public life in the UK.
[Online] London. Available from:
http://hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2012/01/12/representatio
n-of-women-in-politics.aspx [Accessed 12th June 2012]
Hogg, M & Vaughan, G (2011) Social Psychology. 6th Edition [e-book] Harlow,
Pearson. Available from:
http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/direct/AbstractView,title.$Re
aderFunctions.downloadForm.sdirect [Accessed 6th May 2012]
Hogg, M (2012) Uncertainty-Identity Theory. In: Kruglanski, A, Van Lange, P,
Higgins, E (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Volume 2. [Ebook] London. Sage. Available from:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sWyZ7v2Ol8IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1
21&dq=need+to+belong&ots=kAuGAqdzXF&sig=QJlJMPEPSTMwlF7Zr67ao8L
Z5L8#v=onepage&q=need%20to%20belong&f=false [Accessed 5th May 2012]
Hohman, Z.P., Hogg, M.A. & Bligh, M.C. (2010) Identity and Intergroup
Leadership: Asymmetrical Political and National Identification in Response to
Uncertainty.
Self
and
Identity.
[Online]
9,
113-128.
Available
from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=10&sid=b51fd8a6-802c-4e9a-b86b-c1ee10ca0e1a%40sessionmgr10
[Accessed 30th June 2012]
Home Office (no date) Equalities Act 2010. [Online] Available from:
http://homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/equality-act/ [Accessed 30th June 2012]
30
Kneale, D. (2011) Can localism work for older people in urban areas. [Online]
The
International
Longevity
Centre-UK,
London.
Available
from:
http://ilcuk.org.uk/files/pdf_pdf_176.pdf [Accessed 1st July 2012]
Lichterman, P. (1995) Piecing together multicultural community: cultural
differences in community building grass-roots environmentalists. Social
Problems. 42(4) 513-534. Available from:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3097044?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2
&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47699109624747 [Accessed 15th May 2012]
Low, N., Butt, S., Ellis Paine, A & Davis Smith, J. (2007) Helping Out: A national
study of volunteering and charitable giving. [Online] Cabinet Office. London.
Available from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/me
dia/cabinetoffice/third_sector/assets/helping_out_national_survey_2007.pdf
[Accessed 28th June 2012]
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L. & Stoker, G. (2006) Locality Matters: Making
Participation Count in Local Politics. Institute for Public Policy Research.
London. Available from:
http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/pdfs/locality_matters_full.pdf
[Accessed 28th June 2012]
Lozano, R. (2008) Envisioning Sustainability Three-dimensionally. Journal of
Cleaner Production. [Online] 16, 1838-1846. Available from:
http://www.esd.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/esd/11._Lozano._2008._Envisi
oning_Sustainability_three-dimensionally.pdf [Accessed 1st July 2012]
Lynn, M (2006) Discourses of community: challenges for social work.
International Journal of Social Welfare. [Online] 15 (2) 110 – 120. Available
from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=14&sid=50530df3-f13c-4f94-9462-541adecd29d4%40sessionmgr10
[Accessed 25th June 2012]
Merrill, M. V. (2006) Global trends and the challenges for volunteering.
International Journal of Volunteer Administration. [Online] 29 (1) 9 0 14.
Available from:
31
http://www.ijova.org/PDF/VOL24_NO1/IJOVA_VOL24_NO1_Global_Trends_M
ary_Merrill.7.6.06.pdf [Accessed 1st July 2012]
Newman, L. & Dale, A. (2005) The Role of Agency in Sustainable Local
Community Development. Local Environment. [Online] 10 (5) 477-486.
Available from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&hi
d=8&sid=7dc737f3-3208-4e9e-9714-8f0116e5772d%40sessionmgr15
[Accessed 15th June 2012]
Nezlek, J. B., Wesselmann, E. D., Wheeler, L., Williams, K.D. (2012) Ostracism
in Everyday Life. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. [Online] 16
(2) 91 – 104. Available from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=12&sid=78e6317c-01dc-44b1-a303-878ef7ec0ec3%40sessionmgr4
[Accessed 30th June 2012]
Ockenden, N (2007) Volunteering in the natural outdoors in the UK and Ireland:
A literature review [Online] Institute for Volunteering Research. London.
Available
from:
http://www.ivr.org.uk/images/stories/Institute-of-Volunteering-
Research/Migrated-Resources/Documents/N/NatOutdoors.pdf [Accessed 26th
June 2012]
ODPM (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. [Online]
HMSO. London. Available from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289.pdf
[Accessed 22nd June 2012]
Perlman, D & Peplau, L. A. (1984) Loneliness Research: A Survey of Empirical
Findings. In: Peplau, L.A. & Goldston, S. (eds.) Preventing the harmful
consequences of sever and persistent loneliness. US Government Printing
Office, pp 13 – 46. Available from:
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Publications_files/Perlman%20%26%20Peplau%
2084.pdf [Accessed 30th June 2012]
Porritt, J (2007) Capitalism: As if the world matters. 2nd edition. London.
Earthscan
32
Power Inquiry (2006) Power to the People. The Report of Power. An
Independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy [Online] Joseph Rowntree Trust.
York. Available from:
http://www.jrrt.org.uk/sites/jrrt.org.uk/files/documents/PowertothePeople_001.pd
f [Accessed 26th June 2012]
Prochaska, J.O. (1999) How Do People Change?. In: Hubble, M.A., Duncan,
B.L, and Miller, S.D.(eds.) The Heart and Soul of Change. Washington,
American Psychological Association.
Rai, S (2008) Routes and Barriers to Citizen Governance. [Online] Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, York. Available from:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2178-governance-participation-community.pdf
[Accessed 28th June 2012)
Roseland, M (2000) Sustainable Community Development: integrating
environmental, economic and social objectives. Planning in Progress. [Online]
54, 73-132. Available from:
http://socialeconomyhub.ca/sites/socialeconomyhub.ca/files/Sustainable%20Co
mmunity%20Development%20%20integrating%20environmental,%20economic%20and%20social%20objectiv
es_0.pdf [Accessed 24th June 2010]
Spratt, S., Simms, A., Neitzert, E.& Ryan-Collins, J. (2010) The Great
Transition. [Online] New Economic Foundation. London. Available from:
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Great_Transition_0.
pdf [Accessed 11th April 2012]
Transition Network (2011) What is the transition initiative?[Online] Available
from: http://www.transitionnetwork.org/support/what-transition-initiative
[Accessed 28th June 2012]
Verdonschot, M. M. L., de Witte, L. P., Reichrath, E., buntinx, W.H.E., Curfs,
L.M.G. (2009) Impact of environmental factors on community participation of
persons with an intellectual disability: a systematic review. Journal of Intellectual
33
Disability
Research
[Online]
53
(1)
54-64.
Available
from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=24&sid=aeb4adfa-2553-4e39-83ad-4e0eefa4bcdf%40sessionmgr10
[Accessed 28th June 2012]
Wallace, A (2010) Public Attitudes to Housing [Online] Joseph Rowntree
Foundation,
Housing
market
taskforce.
York.
Available
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/housing-public-attitudes-full.pdf
from:
[Accessed
28th June 2012]
Williams, C (2005) A critical evaluation of hierarchical representations of
community involvement: Some lessons from the UK. Community Development
Journal
[Online]
40
(1)
30-38.
Available
from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/content/40/1/30.full.pdf+html
[Accessed 2nd June 2012]
Williams, S.C. (2011) Geographical Variations in the nature of community
engagement: a total social organisation of labour approach. Community
Development
Journal.
[Online]
40(2)
213-228.
Available
from:
http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org.atlas.worc.ac.uk/content/46/2/213.full.pdf+html
[Accessed 2/6/12]
Wolfer, R., Bull, H.D., Scheithaue, H. (2012) Social Interaction in Youth: Insights
from a Social Network Perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice.
[Online]
16
(2)
138-147.
Available
from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.atlas.worc.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi
d=12&sid=78e6317c-01dc-44b1-a303-878ef7ec0ec3%40sessionmgr4
[Accessed 30th June 2012]
34