URBAN SETTLEMENTS WORKING GROUP

AREA-BASED APPROACHES IN
URBAN SETTINGS
Compendium of Case Studies
MAY 2019 edition

www.sheltercluster.org

1
Source: CRS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was coordinated and overseen by the Global Shelter Cluster’s (GSC) Urban
Settlements Working Group and with the support of DG-ECHO.

This current iteration of this Compendium of case studies includes case studies from the following organisations:

• ACTED

• American Red Cross

• Care International UK

• Catholic Relief Services

• Feinstein International Centre at TUFTS University

• Global Communities

• Habitat for Humanity International

• Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT)

• IMPACT Initiatives

• International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

• Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS)

• Kenya Red Cross Societyz

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

• Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)

• Norwegian Refugee Council

• Project Concern International

• SOLIDARITÉS INTERNATIONAL

• Shelter Projects 2011 – 2012

• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

• United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)

2
Source: CRS/Ismail Ferdous

SPECIAL THANKS
This report was produced with the support of the above agencies and specific thanks to Amelia Rule, Andrea Quaden, Anna Hirsch
Holland, Ausde Bertrand, Brett Moore, Catherine Sherwood, Charmalee Jayasinghe, Daniel Mutinda, David Humphries, Davide
Nicolini, Donal Reilly, Ela Serdaroglu, Giulia Frontini, Giovanna Federici, Ibrahim Suada, James Schell, Jenina Allia, Jessica Sadye
Wolff, Jim DiFrancesca, Lora Vicariot, Louise Thaller, Luca Pupulin, Manual Vega-Cuberos, Mario Flores, Mhairi O’Hara, Miguel
Urquia, Nadia Carlevaro, Nanki Chawla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Richard Evans, Rudra Adhikari, Ryan Smith, Samer Saliba, Tom
Corsellis, Tulio Mateo, Will Cragin, Yantisa Akhadi, Zeynep Balcioglu, and Ziggy Garewal.

Project managers: James Schell, Mohamed Hilmi, Seki Hirano

Analysis and executive summary; Elizabeth Parker, Victoria Maynard
Graphic Design: Sneha Malani
Copyeditor: James Schell

Links:
Urban settlement Working Group
For reference literature see Area-based Approaches Channel, Humanitarian library

This compendium was made possible through the support of EU humanitarian aid

About EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid: The European Union and its Member States are the world’s leading donor of
humanitarian aid. Relief assistance is an expression of European solidarity with people in need all around the world. It aims to
save lives, prevent and alleviate human suffering, and safeguard the integrity and human dignity of populations affected by natural
disasters and man-made crises. The European Commission ensures rapid and effective delivery of EU relief assistance through its
two main instruments: civil protection and humanitarian aid. Through its civil protection and humanitarian aid operations
department (ECHO), the European Commission helps over 120 million victims of conflict and disasters every year. With
headquarters in Brussels and a global network of field offices, the Commission’s civil protection and humanitarian aid operations
department provides assistance to the most vulnerable people on the basis of humanitarian needs. For more information, please
visit the European Commission’s website .

This document covers humanitarian aid activities implemented with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views
expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the European Union, and the European
Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

3
Source: Unicef/Noorani

EDITORIAL
Affected communities do not perceive their recovery in sectoral terms, but from a holistic, multi-sectoral perspective. Whilst
sectoral approaches and technical expertise remain important ingredients in humanitarian response and recovery, understanding
the holistic needs of affected communities require improved sectoral and stakeholder collaboration. Applying an area-based /
settlement-based approach, which “advocates for assistance that considers the whole population affected by a crisis, living in a
specific geographic area in need of multi-sectoral support by working with multiple stakeholders”, contributes to this achieving
holistic understanding and program logic.

Area-based / Settlement-based approaches define “an area, rather than a sector or target group, as a primary entry point”. This
approach can be particularly appropriate if residents in an affected area face complex, inter-related and multisectoral needs.
Whilst this approach is recognised as one of many, its strength is realised through building a deeper understanding of the affected
populations’ holistic needs and complex contexts, and by building on existing community cohesion and capacity, governance
structures, markets and service delivery mechanisms.

In recent years, this approach has gained traction among humanitarian actors seeking to provide more effective responses to crisis
affected populations and pave the way for recovery. The increasing application of this approach builds on experiences of urban
and regional planners working on community renewal through ‘area-based initiatives’ in poor and vulnerable locations since the
1960s and 1970s. This was reinforced by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s call in 2010 for a “paradigm shift in humanitarian
assistance in urban areas, based on a community-based - rather than - an individual or household approach”. More recently,
the Habitat III summit, the Global Alliance for Urban Crises, InterAction, and strategy papers by OFDA, ECHO, and UNHCR
have acknowledged and promoted these approaches. However, whilst humanitarian and development agencies are increasingly
applying this approach, it occurs in a rather sporadic nature and is yet to reach scale and be recognised as ‘a tool in the toolbox’ by
the overall humanitarian system.

To support the adoption of this approach, the Urban Settlements Working Group (USWG) was established in May 2017. Co-chaired
by Catholic Relief Services, Impact Initiatives and InterAction, under the auspices of the Global Shelter Cluster, a key objective of
the USWG is to identify and promote best practice and lessons learnt from existing practices. With over 60 organisations engaged,
the USWG provides a platform to bring together global clusters, implementing agencies, donors and academics to research,
discuss and operationalize these approaches in humanitarian assistance. This publication represents a key output and important
milestone of the USWG, consolidating current practices, identifying common challenges & constraints and providing operational
guidance.

The USWG would like to thank the numerous agencies who have contributed to this compendium. We hope this publication will
serve as a useful point of reference for organisations applying a settlement-based approach to response and recovery.

Overall, the approach requires further research, application and evaluation to create an informed evidence base to influence
change across the traditional humanitarian response mechanisms. Looking ahead, the USWG will continue to champion this
approach in global and regional discussions, develop accessible guidance and tools wherever it can add value and count on
humanitarian and development communities’ continued support.

GSC Urban Settlement WG co-conveners

Catholic Relief Services, IMPACT Initiatives and InterAction

4
Source: OCHA/Audrey Janvier

CONTENTS
EDITORIAL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….....................................4

INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS

1. What is this document about?..................................................................................................................................................................................6
2. What are area-based approaches? ………………………………………………………………………………………….……......................................9
3. Reasons for adopting area-based approaches ………………………………………………………………………….……........................................10
4. What do area-based approaches look like in practice?………………………………………………………………………........................................11
5. What can we learn from the case studies?……………………………………………………………………….……....................................................12
6. How can area-based approaches be improved?……………………………………………………………………….……...........................................13

CASE STUDIES

CITY LEVEL SCALE

C1 Ar-Raqqa, Syria / Ar-Raqqa Area Based Assessment
C2 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania / Open Mapping for Flood Resilience
C3 Jakarta, Indonesia / Enhancing Capacity within Disaster Management Agencies through Open Exposure Data
C4 Mosul, Iraq / Settlement Based Coordination following the Mosul Offensive
C5 Various, Sri Lanka/ Disaster Resilient City Development Strategies for Sri Lankan Cities
C6 Aleppo, Syria / Multi-sector prioritisation to rehabilitee conflict-affected neighbourhoods
C7 Governorates of Erbil, Duhok and Sulaymaniyah, Iraq / Urban Profiling in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq
C8 Roxas City, Panay, Pontevedra, Estancia; Philippines / Post-Yolanda Support for Safer Homes and Settlements

DISTRICT/BOROUGH SCALE
D1 Afghanistan / Supporting the response to urban displacement in eastern Afghanistan
D2 Maiduguri, Nigeria / Application of Local Area Based Coordination mechanisms for Cholera Response
D3 Mogadishu, Somalia / Tri-cluster support in response to the 2011 famine and conflict
D4 Kabul, Afghanistan / Kabul Area Shelter and Settlements

NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE
N1 Bangui, Central African Republic / Support to settlement-based response and recovery planning
N2 Kampala, Uganda / Partnering with Kampala Capital City Authority on refugees and migrant integration
N3 Nairobi, Kenya / Building Resilience in Urban informal settlements through innovation and partnerships
N4 Tripoli, Lebanon / Supporting urban rehabilitation for Syrian Refugees and Host Communities
N5 Beirut and Mount Lebanon, Lebanon / Lebanon Refugee Crisis response
N6 Tripoli, Lebanon / ‘El Hay’ Integration multi-scale interventions for vulnerable populations
N7 Colombia / Legalisation of Urban Settlements
N8 Portmore, Jamaica / BRACED: Disaster Risk Reduction in Vulnerable Urban settlements
N9 Port-au-Prince, Haiti / Neighbourhood Revitalisation in Simon Pelé, Port-au-Prince
N10 Port-au-Prince, Haiti / Neighbourhoods Approach to Urban Disaster in Ravine Pintade
N11 Port-au-Prince, Haiti / Applying the neighbourhood approach
N12 Port-au-Prince, Haiti / LAMIKA – Integrated neighbourhoods approach to recovery and reconstruction in Port-au-Prince
N13 Port-au-Prince, Haiti / The neighbourhood approach to ‘build back better’ in Christ Roi
N14 Barrio Mio, Guatemala / The neighbourhoods Approach for Emergency Response and Urban Resilience
N15 Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar, Herat and Jalalabad; Afghanistan / Community-Led Infrastructure Programme
N16 Tacloban, Philippines / Typhoon Haiyan Recovery Program in Tacloban City
N17 Istanbul,Turkey / Innovative Local Solutions to Migration Crisis

5
 INTRODUCTION
1. What is this document about?

This Compendium is a pioneering collection of case studies describing area-based approaches to urban challenges (2010-2019). The
case studies were sourced from multiple agencies, collected by the Urban Settlements Working Group of the Global Shelter Cluster,
co-chaired by Catholic Relief Services, IMPACT Initiatives and InterAction. The case studies documented here are in responses to
both humanitarian crises and developmental challenges and from a mix of contexts such as rapid onset Natural disasters, Conflict
induced crisis and effects of Rapid urbanisation. The case studies are organised in three sections according to the administrative
scale of project / initiative. From City level scale (C) to District/ Borough scale (D) and to Neighbourhood / ward level (N).

The matrix below is a log key information about the case studies which may guide the reader to find the case study they wish to
learn from. From the matrix one can see which combination of multi sectorial interventions were implemented, such as Shelter,
WASH, Health, Protection DRR, Urban planning, Early Recovery, Livelihoods, Infrastructure and Psychosocial support and includes
experiences which focused around multi-sectorial assessments and coordination. The period of the projects/ initiatives varies in
duration from a few months (for multi-sectoral assessment/action planning) to several years (including implementation across multiple
sectors and scales).

The term ‘area-based approaches’ is used to include a wide-range of approaches described in policy, practice and academia as
‘area-based’, ‘settlement-based’ or ‘neighbourhood-based’ for this compendium project / initiative included here are one that has
the characteristics of area-based approaches: multisectoral, multi-stakeholder, geographically targeted, and consider the whole
population within that location (further defined in Section two and Figure 1). Whilst the focus of the compendium is area-based
approaches undertaken in urban areas, area-based approaches remain equally applicable in per-urban and rural areas with high
levels of complex, inter-related and multi-sectoral needs. This introductory chapter is based on analysis of these case studies in this
compendium supported by a review of existing literature on the topic by subject matter experts.

See Table 1 and Figure 3 for more detailed information on each case-study.

Table 1: Case studies summary table

Type of crisis Multi-sectorial support
Multi-sectorial coordination
Multi-sectorial assessment
Case Study Number

Urban planning
Early Recovery
Rapid urbanization

Implementing

Psycho-social
Infrastructure
Natural disaster

Type and Scale of

Livelihoods
Location (city, or lead agency /

Protection
Coordination
Shelter

country)/ title
WASH

Health

Year(s) donor
Conflict

DRR

CITY LEVEL SCALE

Ar-Raqqa, Syria / Ar-Raqqa 2017-

C1 None specified REACH + partners
Area Based Assessment 2019

2015- ‘Humanitarian
2019 OpenStreetMap
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania / Open Project based
C2 Team (HOT) +
Mapping for Flood Resilience coordination
partners / DfID, The
World Bank

2016-
Jakarta, Indonesia / Enhancing Humanitarian
2019
Capacity within Disaster Project based OpenStreetMap
C3
Management Agencies coordination Team + partners/
through Open Exposure Data USAID/OFDA

2017-
Mosul, Iraq / Settlement Based 2018
UNHCR/IOM/CRS/
C4 Coordination following the Cluster system
NRC
Mosul Offensive

2012-
Various, Sri Lanka/ Disaster Project Unit
2014
Resilient City Development (including UN-Habitat +
C5
Strategies for Sri Lankan a Steering partners
Cities Committee)

2017
Aleppo, Syria / Multi-
sector prioritisation to Three-sector
C6 UNHCR + partners
rehabilitee conflict-affected taskforce
neighbourhoods

Icons Source: Kiddo; Symbolon; Andreas Vögele from The Noun Project

6
 Type of crisis Multi-sectorial support

Multi-sectorial coordination
Multi-sectorial assessment
Case Study Number

Urban planning
Early Recovery
Rapid urbanization
Implementing

Psycho-social
Infrastructure
Natural disaster
Type and Scale of

Livelihoods
Location (city, or lead agency /

Protection
Coordination

Shelter
country)/ title

WASH

Health
Year(s) donor

Conflict

DRR
CITY LEVEL SCALE CONTINUED
2015- Profiling Steering
Governorates of Erbil, Duhok 2016 Committee,
Technical Working Joint IDP Profiling
and Sulaymaniyah, Iraq / Urban Group facilitated and
C7 Service (JIPS) +
Profiling in Erbil, Kurdistan supported by the
partners /DfID
Region of Iraq Joint IDP Profiling
Service (JIPS)

2014-
Roxas City, Panay, Pontevedra,
2015
Estancia; Philippines / Post- Homeowners’
C8 UN-Habitat
Yolanda Support for Safer associations
Homes and Settlements

DISTRICT/BOROUGH SCALE
Afghanistan / Supporting
the response to urban Neighbourhood Norwegian Refugee
D1 2017+
displacement in eastern committees Council
Afghanistan

Maiduguri, Nigeria / Application

Local area Solidarites
of Local Area Based
D2 2017 coordination group International (SI) and
Coordination mechanisms for
(primarily (I)NGOs) CRS
Cholera Response

Mogadishu, Somalia / Tri-

2011- Tri-cluster
D3 cluster support in response to Various (14 partners)
2013 coordination
the 2011 famine and conflict

Community
Kabul, Afghanistan / Kabul Area 2008- ACTED/ USAID/
D4 councils
Shelter and Settlements 2010 OFDA
(gozar shuras)

NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE
Bangui, Central African Republic Urban-level working
AGORA (IMPACT
/ Support to settlement-based group inclusive
N1 2017 and ACTED) and
response and recovery of local and
CUF/UCLG / ECHO
planning international actors

Kampala, Uganda / Partnering Government

International Rescue
with Kampala Capital City 2017- (Kampala Capital
N2 Committee and
Authority on refugees and 2018 City Authority
IMPACT Initiatives
migrant integration (KCCA))

Nairobi, Kenya / Building

Resilience in Urban informal 2008- Community Kenya Red Cross
N3
settlements through 2020 committees Society
innovation and partnerships

Tripoli, Lebanon / Supporting CARE International

urban rehabilitation for 2015- Neighbourhood Lebanon and
N4
Syrian Refugees and Host 2018+ committees Akkarouna/ BPRM
Communities (USA Gov)

Beirut and Mount Lebanon, Community focal

2015-
N5 Lebanon / Lebanon Refugee point networks and ACTED
2016
Crisis response committees

Solidarites
Tripoli, Lebanon / ‘El Hay’
International +
Integration multi-scale 2016-
N6 None specified partners /Lebanon
interventions for vulnerable 2018
Humanitarian Fund,
populations
managed by OCHA

7
 Type of crisis Multi-sectorial support

Multi-sectorial coordination
Multi-sectorial assessment
Case Study Number

Urban planning
Early Recovery
Rapid urbanization
Implementing

Psycho-social
Infrastructure
Natural disaster
Type and Scale of

Livelihoods
Location (city, or lead agency /

Protection
Coordination

Shelter
country)/ title

WASH

Health
Year(s) donor

Conflict

DRR
NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE CONTINUED

Colombia / Legalisation of 2013-

N7 ‘Government led’ UNHCR and partners
Urban Settlements 2016+

Portmore, Jamaica / BRACED:

2015- Community Habitat for Humanity
N8 Disaster Risk Reduction in
? committees LAC
Vulnerable Urban settlements

Haiti Shelter
Port-au-Prince, Haiti / Cluster, local
2010- Habitat for Humanity
N9 Neighbourhood Revitalisation municipality
2017 International
in Simon Pelé, Port-au-Prince authorities, line
ministries.

Global Communities
Port-au-Prince, Haiti / Cluster system,
neighbourhood (then CHF
Neighbourhoods Approach 2010-
N10 committee International),Project
to Urban Disaster in Ravine 2011 (and five zonal Concern International
Pintade committees)
/USAID/OFDA

extracted from
Port-au-Prince, Haiti / Applying 2011- Project based
N11 Shelter Projects U.5
the neighbourhood approach 2017 coordination
/ A.10

Port-au-Prince, Haiti / LAMIKA

– Integrated neighbourhoods
2013- Project based American Red Cross
N12 approach to recovery and
2017 coordination + partners
reconstruction in Port-au-
Prince

SOLIDARITES
INTERNATIONAL,
Port-au-Prince, Haiti / The
Entrepreneurs du
neighbourhood approach to 2013-
N13 Local Authority Monde, GRET,
‘build back better’ in Christ 2017
Build Change and
Roi
Fondation Architectes
de l’Urgence.

Barrio Mio, Guatemala / The Project Concern

neighbourhoods Approach Project based International +
N14 2012+
for Emergency Response and coordination partners / USAID/
Urban Resilience OFDA

Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Community

Kandahar, Herat and Jalalabad; 2015- Development
N15 UN-Habitat
Afghanistan / Community-Led 2016 Councils, Gozar
Infrastructure Programme Assemblies

Tacloban, Philippines / Typhoon Catholic Relief

2013- Neighbourhood Services (CRS) +
N16 Haiyan Recovery Program in
2015 Committees partners / USAID/
Tacloban City OFDA

Istanbul,Turkey / Innovative Feinstein

Online
International Centre
N17 Local Solutions to Migration 2016 platform (data
at TUFTS University
Crisis management)
+ partners

8
2. What are area-based approaches?

Definition
Area-based approaches provide multi-sectoral support and work with multiple stakeholders, considering the whole population living
in a specific geographic area with high levels of need (see Figure 1).

Characteristics
Multi-sectoral support can include interventions in sectors such as health, education, housing, livelihoods, social safety nets, water
and sanitation. Not all needs will be met, but all individuals in the target area will receive a level of support appropriate to their relative
needs (such as access to improved public spaces, information or training).

Multi-stakeholder refers to active engagement of numerous, diverse stakeholder groups present in the target area, including local
government, civil society, international humanitarian and development actors, the private sector and the affected community (see
below).

Area-based approaches consider the whole population of an area, which includes all affected people regardless of their legal
status , or risk category or associated groups. (Sphere 2018). The whole population also includes long-term residents who could
have been affected in different ways. Providing a degree of assistance to the whole population in an area can be described as an
‘inclusive’ approach .

Specific geographic areas with high levels of need can be delineated by physical, social or administrative boundaries (or a
combination of factors) and vary in scale from neighbourhoods, through wards and districts, to the whole town or city (see Figure 3).

Figure 1: Characteristics of area-based approaches

Multi-sectoral Multi-Stakeholder
Education Local government
Health Civil society
Housing Host community
Livelihoods Donors
Water & Sanitation Humanitarian actors
Social safety nets Development actors
Protection
Area-based
approaches

Residents
Physical boundaries Migrants
Social boundaries Displaced Populations
Administrative Refugees
Returnees
Specific geographic areas with Hosts
high needs Consider the
whole population

Source: Adapted from Parker & Maynard (2015)

9
Common attributes of area-based approaches • monitor and evaluate multi-agency contribution to
Learning from the case studies in combination with the change rather than solely single-agency attribution
existing literature, area-based approaches are more likely to of outputs to outcomes.
be successful if they:

• are people-centred and include meaningful, early and 3. Reasons for adopting area-based
ongoing engagement with all impacted population groups
approaches
in the target area;
Policymakers and donors are calling for a paradigm shift in
• include the active participation of all stakeholders
humanitarian response in urban areas as the complexities
relevant to the context. The type of stakeholder and
of urban crises require a greater understanding of urban
the level of engagement will vary but could include local,
systems, collaboration with local government, and
regional and national government, civil society, faith-
interventions across multiple sectors and scales. If well
based organisations, diaspora, academia and the private
designed and implemented area-based approaches can:
sector;
• create “a ‘platform’ which brings together a diversity of
• are based on multi-sectoral, multi-agency
actors with different capacities to discuss the collective
assessments ;
response”;
• “complement existing governance systems and
• are used selectively and focus on areas with a high
accommodate the multi-sector and multi-stakeholder
concentration of needs;
approach that cities and towns require”;
• reduce the creation or reinforcement of tensions and
• are linked to wider city or regional plans and policies
inequalities and “contribute to improving social cohesion”
(across multiple sectors and scales);
• effectively focus resources and “enhance clarity and
understanding of how best to coherently provide multi-
• address immediate needs while focusing on longer-term
sectoral assistance”.
outcomes and impacts (including the transfer of roles and
responsibilities to local actors);
However, if poorly designed and implemented, area-based
approaches can: increase inequalities between the target area
• allow sufficient time to build relationships and bring
and surrounding areas; create an unnecessary distraction
together multiple stakeholders;
from underlying social, economic or institutional problems;
shift responsibility onto local stakeholders when national or
• adopt iterative, flexible and adaptive approaches
international action is required; be costly to implement and an
to programme design, management, funding and
ineffective use of resources; take a long time to deliver; lead
coordination;
to a disconnect between local plans and wider city or regional
plans, become highly politicised; and be difficult to monitor
• work with, and build on existing systems of local
and evaluate .
governance and service delivery;

Figure 2: How are area-based approaches different from other approaches?

Individuals or households

Communities of interest
- such as schools or workplaces

Area-based approaches

Systems/infrastructure
- roads, water, telecommunications

Markets (not location specific)

Institutions (not location specific)

Advocacy (not location specific)

Source: Authors

10
Comparison with other approaches
Alternative approaches to delivering assistance in urban
Humanitarian organisations have traditionally provided areas include (also see Figure 2):
assistance to individuals or households in need, or to • systems-based approaches – supporting the
communities associated with a particular livelihood (e.g. fishing rehabilitation of critical infrastructure and improved
communities ) or services (such as schools or health centres). access for vulnerable groups;
In these approaches individuals or households are identified • market-based approaches – working through or
according to a set of specific criteria of need or vulnerability. supporting the recovery of local markets;
For example, people facing unique protection risks, and • institution-based approaches – such as providing
groups at risk of discrimination and social exclusion due to urban planning support to local government or creating a
their ethnicity, nationality, caste, indigenous group, or religious network of community-based organisations;
or political affiliation, their tenure situation, displacement • advocacy-based approaches – for example, challenging
status, informal settler status or renter status; the location policies which limit access to services for vulnerable groups.
of dwellings that are difficult to access, in hazardous areas,
insecure areas, urban settlements or informal settlements; Deciding which approach is most appropriate depends on the
and their vulnerability and status within society. Area-based mandate and capacity of the assisting organisation and “the
approaches define “an area, rather than a sector or target proportion of the population that needs assistance, the type of
group, as the main entry point” – an approach which can programme contemplated, trade-offs between targeting cost
be particularly appropriate if the residents in a particular area and targeting accuracy, and the feasibility of targeting options”.
of a city have high levels of complex, inter-related and multi- Area-based approaches should not necessarily be prioritised
sectoral needs. over other ways of targeting or coordinating assistance. In
fact, they are most likely to be successful when supported
by, and linked to, interventions that restore or strengthen city-
wide markets, institutions or systems.

4. What do area-based approaches look like in practice?

Different scales and stages of area-based approach

Within the programmes detailed in the case studies, there were three different scales of area-based approach, including:
1. City scale
2. District, Bourgh
3. Ward or neighbourhood scale

Figure 3: Area-Based Approach Scales

Area-based Approach Scales

(Local authority, project-based coordination,

implementing in a specific area

(Neighborhood committees, community
technical working groups, associations)

One agency coordinating and

councils, community resource centers)

Coordination and Implementation options

(Tri-sector task force/coordination)
Municipal working group/
City level working group/

according to administrative levels/scales

coordination
coordination
Multiple agencies
sharing responsibility
of each phase

City/town
sequentially working
through each stage

District/borough
One agency

Ward

Neighbourhood

11
Programmes that adopted Approach 1 (city scale) or Approach shelter sector set up and led a three-sector taskforce
2 (district, ward or neighbourhood scale) typically followed a (Shelter, WASH and Early Recovery), led by the three
five-stage process: national sector coordinators in close collaboration with
national and local government and sub-national sector
1. Initiation coordinators. In Mogadishu (case study 4) Tri-Cluster
2. Assessment and data collection coordination (Shelter, WASH, Health) was established,
3. Analysis and planning facilitated by a specific Tri-Cluster coordinator.
4. Official (or unofficial) approval of the Plan • One agency-led coordination. Coordinating with, or
5. Implementation and monitoring via, existing humanitarian Clusters – typically with one
humanitarian agency coordinating activities in a specific
This process is similar to a typical urban planning process area and acting as a link between Clusters and partners
undertaken by cities and has a greater emphasis on the built active on the ground (see case studies 9 and 10 in Port-
environment (e.g. housing, infrastructure etc.). au-Prince and 22 in Mosul), including the creation of
community resource centres.
In the programmes which worked at a district, ward or
neighbourhood scale (Approach 2) typically one agency (and 5. What can we learn from the case
partners) worked through each of the 5 stages sequentially studies?
– as part as of one programme (for example case studies
4 in Mogadishu and 10 in Port-au-Prince). However, in Achievements
the programmes working at a city scale (Approach 1) the
stages were more distinct – typically with different agencies Key achievements identified in the case studies included:
responsible for each stage (for example case studies 23 in • Multi-sector, multi-agency assessment, planning,
Erbil or 27 in Aleppo). This highlights that when working at a coordination and implementation led to: shared
city scale specialist staff, equipment and processes may be prioritisation and planning; better communication
required to complete each stage (due to the more complex between partners; faster response to evolving needs;
and specialist nature of the work) and that sufficient time and more efficient implementation; and better links between
funding needs to be allowed. humanitarian and development interventions and actors
(for example case studies 4 in Mogadishu and 22 in
Approach 3 followed a four-stage process: Mosul).
1. Initiation • High levels of engagement with all relevant
2. Assessment and data collection stakeholders helped to: develop consensus around
3. Establish Community Centre(s) a shared response plan; demonstrate impartiality and
4. Implementation and monitoring (e.g. running Community respect; ensure no key influencers were left behind; build
Centres) the capacity of local actors; and create and/or strengthen
relationships between communities and government (for
In parallel to the two final stages, an outreach programme example case studies 24 in Tripoli and 27 in Aleppo).
was implemented that identified smaller target areas for • The use of participatory tools and approaches for
intervention, engaged the community through committees community-based assessment, mapping, action planning,
and carried out training (see case study 14 in Afghanistan). settlement planning, coordination, implementation and
monitoring helped to: build trust; generate ownership;
Type and scale of area-based coordination models strengthen community cohesion; efficiently identify
needs; manage expectations; and work with communities
All the programmes included coordination throughout all to solve complex problems (see case study 10 in Port-
stages. A key part of coordination is establishing a multi- au-Prince).
sectoral coordination body – see stage 1 (initiation). The
majority of the district, ward or neighbourhood scale case Challenges
studies- approaches 2 and 3- in both a humanitarian and
developmental context, established new, or worked with The case studies highlighted the following challenges to
existing, Community Committees (for example case studies implementing area-based programmes:
10 in Port-au-Prince, 14 and 16 in Afghanistan, 19 in Tacloban • Targeting: Defining boundaries and focusing assistance
and 24 in Tripoli). A variety of other coordination mechanisms on specific (high profile) areas created tensions with
were adopted based on the scale of intervention (e.g. city or residents in surrounding areas and a risk that they would
sub-city), type of approach (approach 1,2 or 3), context (e.g. not receive support (see case study 1 in Bangui).
developmental or humanitarian), type of crisis, or population • Stakeholder engagement: The number and complexity
affected (e.g. displaced or non-displaced). Different of stakeholders led to difficulties: mapping all the
coordination mechanisms included: stakeholders (especially as their influence changed over
• City level working group / coordination body time); clarifying the relationship between sector-based
Establishing and supporting an Urban Working Group – and area-based coordination structures; agreeing where
led by local government/the Mayor and key humanitarian to work and which agency should lead; synchronising the
agencies and inclusive of local and international actors implementation of programmes at different scales (e.g.
(see case studies 1 in Bangui and 6 in Kampala). individual, household or community-level) and at different
• Municipal level / sub-city coordination body or cluster times (for example case studies 4 in Mogadishu and 22
task forces. Including experiences of establishing a in Mosul).
three-sector taskforce. In Aleppo (case study 27) the

12
Linking between scales: Coordinating smaller-scale plans 2. are people-centred and include meaningful
and interventions with wider city and national government engagement with the whole population in the target area.
initiatives – for example incorporating smaller-scale projects This can include establishing community committees
into city development plans or integrating national- or city- and the use of participatory tools and approaches for
government plans into community-based planning (see case community-based assessment, mapping, action planning,
study 19 in Tacloban). settlement planning, implementation and monitoring.
3. include the active participation of all stakeholders
Other challenges identified in the case studies, which also relevant to the particular context. The type of stakeholder
included challenges associated with many humanitarian and and their level of engagement will vary but could
development initiatives: the poor quality of existing housing include local, regional and national government, civil
and/or infrastructure; lack of clarity around land ownership society, faith-based organisations, diaspora, academia
and tenure; broader gender, cultural, governance, economic and the private sector. Stakeholder engagement can
or security issues; lack of mandate, capacity, and/or funding include: stakeholder mapping (including relationships
of local actors; the diversity and mobility of urban populations; between actors and existing decision-making/approvals
and limitations caused by funding conditions or cycles. processes); establishing multi-sectoral working groups
to coordinate activities in specific areas (potentially with
Enabling contexts separate but connected working groups operating at
different scales); mechanisms to coordinate and share
According to the case studies, area-based approaches were decision making, and engagement with local government
more likely to be successful in contexts where: (potentially as lead, or co-lead of the working group).
• they had sufficient funding as well as donor support 4. are linked to wider city or regional plans and policies
for the multi-sectoral working group, assessment and (across multiple sectors and scales). For example,
response plan (for example case studies 1 in Bangui and ensuring neighbourhood plans are aligned with city
10 in Port-au-Prince); planning processes, and city plans align with regional
• there was an existing multi-sectoral coordination system strategies. Area-based approaches can link with
or culture (see case study 4 in Mogadishu); wider plans for the city by complimenting area-based
• communities were less transient and more cohesive (see approaches with other types of interventions (such as
case study 6 in Kampala); institutional support and advocacy – see Figure 2) and
• local government was supportive and area-based extending support to surrounding communities (such as
programmes were aligned with government policies and protection, health and cash for work programming).
plans (see case study 19 in Tacloban). 5. work with, and build on existing systems of local
governance and service delivery to address short-
Scaling up term needs while focusing on longer-term outcomes
and impacts. This can include supporting local actors
The case studies included examples of scaling-up area-based and authorities to define priorities and deliver public
approaches through: services in the longer-term (rather than engaging in direct
• pilot projects in specific areas to demonstrate results, implementation) and the development, communication
develop standard tools and develop the capacity of and implementation of clear exit strategy (including the
partners prior to replicating the approach in other areas roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders).
(for example case studies 7 in Colombia and 13 in 6. have sufficient funding (including donor support), staff
Guatemala); with adequate experience and expertise in urban
• starting multi-sectoral coordination with just two to environments (specific areas of expertise required
three core sectors, then adding additional sectors and included community engagement, land titling, settlement
programmes once a system and culture of multi-sectoral planning, shelter and engineering), and allow sufficient
coordination had been established (see case study 4 in time to build relationships and trust and bring together
Mogadishu). multiple stakeholders.
7. adopt iterative, flexible and adaptive approaches
to programme design, management, funding and
6. How can area-based approaches be coordination in order to respond to changes in context,
improved? shifting priorities or new emergencies when operating in
complex operating environments.
Area-based approaches can be a useful methodology 8. monitor and evaluate multi-agency contribution to
for working in cities (or areas of cities) with high levels of change rather than single-agency attribution of
complex, inter-related and multi-sectoral needs. As outlined outputs to outcomes.
in section two of this introduction, area-based approaches
are best implemented when they adhere to a set of common Key issues which would benefit from further research include:
characteristics or attributes. Within the framework of these the context/enabling environment, such as what factors
characteristics area-based approaches can be further in the context help or hinder area-based approaches; the
strengthened if they: outcomes and impacts of area-based programmes (at
different scales and over time); and comparing the efficiency
1. are based on multi-sectoral, multi-agency and effectiveness of area-based approaches to other
assessments and focus on areas with high levels of approaches (those targeting individuals, households, markets
complex, inter-related and multi-sectoral need. or systems etc.).

13
URBAN SETTLEMENTS WORKING GROUP

14