Empowering Community Participation in Urban Redevelopment Through Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory

Authors

  • Shazni Awang Samat Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • Khalid Zanudin Centre for Spatially Integrated Digital Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • Yusfida Ayu Abdullah Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Haslina Hashim Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • Nur Auni Ugong Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24191/bej.v23i2.8544

Keywords:

community participation, community empowerment, communicative action theory, urban planning, urban redevelopment

Abstract

Urban redevelopment is a well-established practice aimed at addressing community needs while fostering economic growth. However, limited access to information and weak cooperation often hinder meaningful community participation. Although numerous studies have examined community involvement in urban development, few focus specifically on redevelopment contexts, where displacement and long-term socioeconomic implications intensify the need for genuine community participation. This paper addresses this gap by developing a conceptual framework to empower community participation in urban redevelopment, serving as a guideline for local agencies and stakeholders. Decision-making in urban redevelopment frequently overlooks community input, despite its direct impact on residents’ lives. Grounded in Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, the proposed framework emphasises creating communicative spaces for planners to actively listen to community voices, build trust, and facilitate consensus among diverse stakeholders. Through an Integrative Literature Review (ILR) as a method, a conceptual framework was developed by synthesising previous studies and integrating theoretical perspectives. The framework contributes to theoretical discourse by integrating Habermas’ communicative principles into urban redevelopment, offering policy-oriented insights for planners and local authorities to promote more inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes. Future research may empirically validate this framework within specific redevelopment contexts.

Author Biographies

  • Shazni Awang Samat, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

    Shazni Awang Samat is a doctoral researcher at Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak. She is specializing in urban planning and community development. Her research examines community participation in urban redevelopment projects in Sarawak, with a particular emphasis on understanding how local communities can be empowered to meaningfully engage in planning and decision-making processes. Her work further explores how communicative approaches contribute to social inclusiveness, community empowerment, and more responsive urban redevelopment outcomes. She can be contacted at shaznisamat@gmail.com

  • Khalid Zanudin, Centre for Spatially Integrated Digital Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

    Khalid Zanudin, PhD, is a senior lecturer at Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak. Currently, he serves as the Deputy Dean (Industry and Community Engagement) at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. His research interest focuses on urban planning and governance, particularly on urban sustainability and community planning. Now, he is working on several research projects concentrating on collaborative planning and land use governance particularly in Sarawak. He can be reached at zkhalid@unimas.my 

  • Yusfida Ayu Abdullah, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

    Yusfida Ayu Abdullah, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Town and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450, Shah Alam, Selangor. Currently, she serves at the Faculty of Built Environment as the Deputy Dean (Students Affairs). Her interest focuses on urban planning, particularly on physical, environmental and community planning. Now, she is working on several studies concentrating on the environment, i.e., sponge city and the role of the local community in mangrove replanting.  She can be reached at yusfida@uitm.edu.my 

  • Haslina Hashim, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

    Haslina Hashim, PhD, is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak. Currently, she is the Deputy Director of the Centre of Graduate Studies at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Her research interests focus on human geography and development planning, particularly on social impact assessment and community planning. She is actively involved in research projects related to social impact assessment with the most recent one being on the impacts of the Bakun Hydropower Plant Construction on the Rejang river basin and its communities. She can be reached at hahaslina@unimas.my

  • Nur Auni Ugong, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

    Nur Auni Ugong, PhD, is a lecturer at Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak. Currently, she serves as the Deputy Dean (Student Affairs and Alumni) at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. Her research interests focus on archaeology, cultural heritage management, and community empowerment, with particular emphasis on the management of ancient sites and community-based heritage practices in Sarawak. She is actively involved in research and fieldwork related to archaeological sites and heritage conservation in the region. She can be reached at unauni@unimas.my 

References

Adamson, D., & Bromiley, R. (2013). Community empowerment: learning from practice in community regeneration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-08-2011-0105

Alenzi, H. A., & Miskon, S. (2024). Government to citizens communication via social media platforms: Literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v14-i5/21610

Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in practice from analysis to implementation. World Bank Publication. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6450-5

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Ashade, O. A., & Mutereko, S. (2022). Collaborative governance and project community stakeholding in developing countries’ infrastructural governance: Lessons from Nigeria’s experiential Knowledge. The African Journal of Governance and Development (AJGD), 11(1.2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.36369/2616-9045/2022/v11si2a2

Azhar, M., Ali, M., & Arifin, K. (2019). Factors contributing to the success and weakness of public participation in local plans at local authority Malaysia: A review. Asian Journal of Environment, 3(2), 29–35. https://spaj.ukm.my/ajehh/index.php/ajehh/article/view/123/183

Bimenyimana, T., Bugenimana, E. D., Habineza, E., Bushesha, M. S., & Ali, M. (2022). Impact of urbanization on land use and land cover changes in growing cities of Rwanda. Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers, 44(8), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.4491/ksee.2022.44.8.258

Borer, M. I. (2010). From collective memory to collective imagination: Time, place, and urban redevelopment. Symbolic Interaction, 33(1), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2010.33.1.96

Brorström, S., & Styhre, A. (2021). Plans and situated actions in urban renewal projects: The role of governance devices in realizing projects. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 39(3), 646–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420941856

Chen, Y. (2022). Financialising urban redevelopment: Transforming Shanghai’s waterfront. Land Use Policy, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105126

Chou, J. S., Chang, Y. H., Molla, A., & Chong, W. O. (2023). Determining critical success factors for residential reconstruction in the urban city from the perspective of developers. Sustainable Cities and Society, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104977

Dalton, T. M. (2005). Beyond biogeography: A framework for involving the public in planning of U.S. marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19(5), 1392–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00116.x

Dean, R. J. (2017). Beyond radicalism and resignation: The competing logics for public participation in policy decisions. Policy and Politics, 45(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14531466517034

Fennell, S. (2019). Process and outcomes: Participation and empowerment in a multidimensional poverty framework. In The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation (pp. 125–154). Palgrave Macmillan, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-35230-9_6

Fischler, R. (2014). Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. Planning Theory, 13(3), 324–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214521584

Gunton, T. (2003). The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. 31(2). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289187250

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press. https://teddykw2.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/jurgen-habermas-theory-of-communicative-action-volume-1.pdf

Haikio, L. (2007). Expertise, representation and the common good: Grounds for legitimacy in the urban governance network. Urban Studies, 44(11), 2147–2162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701518982

Haselbacher, M., Kuokkanen, K., Palonen, E., & Reeger, U. (2024). Inclusion and exclusion in urban public space: Contemporary challenges in Vienna and Helsinki. Urban Planning, 9. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.8291

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan Press Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170

Johar, N. (2017). Community participation: a cementing process, theorizing various dimensions and approaches. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 22(suppl. 1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2017.22.supp1.3

Kelabu, M. A., & Fadzil, K. S. (2019). Reality and development aspiration among the Iban in the interior of song, Kapit, Sarawak: A case study in three longhouses. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.51200/manu.v30i.1894

Kohli, A. (2024). Community engagement and participation in planning of a city. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i03.23793

Lubbe, W., Ham-Baloyi, W. T., & Smit, K. (2020). The integrative literature review as a research method: A demonstration review of research on neurodevelopmental supportive care in preterm infants. Journal of Neonatal Nursing, 26(6), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnn.2020.04.006

Maginn, P. J. (2007). Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106068020

Maier, K. (2001). Citizen participation in planning: Climbing a ladder? European Planning Studies, 9(6), 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666506

Manaf, H. A., Mohamed, A. M., & Lawton, A. (2016). Assessing public participation initiatives in local government decision-making in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(11), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1035788

Marzuki, A. (2009). A review on public participation in environmental impact assessment in Malaysia. In Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 3(12), 126-136. https://um.ase.ro/v04i3/10.pdf

Marzuki, A. (2015). Challenges in the public participation and the decision-making process. Sociologija i Prostor, 53(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.53.1.2

Marzuki, A., & Hay. (2013). Towards a public participation framework in tourism planning. Tourism Planning and Development, 10(4), 494–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2013.804432

Maria, H., Fattah, L., & Azis, Y. (2022). Level of community participation in community-based urban farming development in Banjarbaru City, Indonesia. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 4(5), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejfood.2022.4.5.584

Moreno, F. G. E., Arias, M. S. A., Eras, E. R. S., & Arauz, M. A. H. (2024). Considerations on citizen participation in the development of public policies: insights from a Habermasian perspective. Sapienza, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.51798/sijis.v5i3.636

Mukuzunga, P., Makunde, G., & Chirisa, I. (2021). Communicating with the citizens on pertinent urban planning issues in Zimbabwe: Problem and Prospects for Building Resilience. 3(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354374998

Naku, D. W. C. (2020). Theoretical perspectives on the determinants of effective community participation in development programs. NRCT Data Center, 13(4), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.14456/jcdr-hs.2020.37

Nour, A. M. (2011). Challenges and Advantages of community participation as an approach for sustainable urban development in Egypt. In Journal of Sustainable Development (Vol. 4, Issue 1). www.ccsenet.org/jsd

Noworól, A. (2012). Uwarunkowania projektów rewitalizacji wynikające z zarządzania rozwojem lokalnym (Conditionings of urban regeneration schemes resulting from local development management). RPK (Politechniki Krakowskiej). https://repozytorium.biblos.pk.edu.pl/resources/31665

Nwaobiala, C. (2014). Socio-Economic factors influencing farmers’ participation in community-based programme in Abia and Cross River states of Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 18(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v18i1.5

Obot, V. O., Afia, U. U., & Johnson, N. I. (2022). Community participation and empowerment in promoting healthy communities. International Journal of Public Health Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 7(4), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijphpp.15/vol7n41530

Olsson, A. R. (2009). Relational rewards and communicative planning: Understanding actor motivation. Planning Theory, 8(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209104826

Rifkin, S. B. (2002). Partners in planning. information, participation and empowerment. Health Promotion International, 17(3), 285–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/17.3.285

Roy, T. B., & Saha, S. (2011). A study on factors related to urban growth of a municipal corporation and emerging challenges: A case of Siliguri municipal corporation, West Bengal, India. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 4(14), 683–694. http://www.academicjournals.org/JGRP

Sabila, N. P., Larasati, E., Kusumawardani, S. N., Faizah, A. N., Ryanti, D., & Andria, F. (2024). Capacity building of rural society: The contribution of Pakuan University’s students in enhancing community empowerment in Paseban Village. International Journal of Research in Community Service, 5(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.46336/ijrcs.v5i1.559

Sabran, M. S. (2003). Model pembangunan komuniti. Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/3414/1/Model_Pembangunan_Komuniti.pdf

Sun, C., Liu, J., & Chen, Y. (2024). Impact of empowerment on public participation awareness in community renewal projects: mediating role of trust and community identity. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 24(3), 1931–1944. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2024.2321996

Toukola, S., & Ahola, T. (2022). Digital tools for stakeholder participation in urban development projects. Project Leadership and Society, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100053

Treija, S., Stauskis, G., Koroļova, A., & Bratuškins, U. (2023). Community Engagement in Urban Experiments: Joint effort for sustainable urban transformation. Landscape Architecture and Art, 22(22), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.22616/J.LANDARCHART.2023.22.09

Turcu, C. (2012). Local experiences of urban sustainability: Researching housing market renewal interventions in three English neighbourhoods. Progress in Planning, 78(3), 101–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.04.002

Wang, M., Zhang, F., & Wu, F. (2022). Governing urban redevelopment: A case study of Yongqingfang in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103420

Wates, N. (2014). The community planning handbook. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315848716

Yang, J., Yang, L., & Ma, H. (2022). Community participation strategy for sustainable urban regeneration in Xiamen, China. Land, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050600

Zhang, C., Lu, B., & Song, Y. (2012). Involving the community in inner city renewal: A case study of Nanluogu in Beijing. Journal of Urban Management, 1(2), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2226-5856(18)30060-8

Zhang, Y., Long, H., Ma, L., Tu, S., Liao, L., Chen, K., & Xu, Z. (2019). How does the community resilience of urban village response to the government-led redevelopment? A case study of Tangjialing village in Beijing. Cities, 95, 102396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102396

Downloads

Published

03-07-2026

How to Cite

Empowering Community Participation in Urban Redevelopment Through Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory. (2026). Built Environment Journal, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.24191/bej.v23i2.8544

Similar Articles

11-20 of 115

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.