Social Science and Human Research Bulletin

This study examined how social equity is integrated into community engagement processes in urban development planning in Mbale City, Uganda. The study was motivated by persistent concerns that conventional planning processes may privilege more powerful stakeholders while marginalising low-income residents, persons with disabilities, informal-settlement residents, and other groups whose daily lives are most affected by urban change. Using a mixed-methods design, the study drew on survey responses and qualitative insights from community members, city council officials, local government actors, planners, and key informants. A total sample of 232 participants was used, comprising an estimated survey sample derived from Yamane’s finite-population formula and additional purposively selected key informants. The findings show that community engagement in Mbale relies mainly on conventional face-to-face mechanisms, especially public meetings, focus group discussions, and surveys. Although respondents associated urban planning with visible improvements in business centres, health-care distribution, settlement areas, roads, and infrastructure, the findings also reveal persistent barriers to equitable engagement, including corruption, political interference, rapid population growth, insufficient funding, poor implementation, land-tenure challenges, unplanned settlements, and limited citizen awareness. The study concludes that infrastructure-oriented urban development does not automatically produce social equity unless participation is deliberately inclusive, transparent, adequately funded, and linked to measurable equity outcomes. The article recommends institutionalising inclusive engagement procedures, strengthening community feedback loops, expanding accessible digital and spatial tools, and embedding equity monitoring into urban planning practice.

social equity; community engagement; urban development planning; participatory planning; Mbale City; Uganda

1. Aina-Obe, S. B. (2022). Zakat and Social Responsibilities; An Integration for Public Administration Mechanism. Journal of Management and Business Sciences, 1(1), 126-136.
2. Allam, Z., Sharifi, A., Bibri, S. E., Jones, D. S., & Krogstie, J. (2022). The metaverse as a virtual form of smart cities: Opportunities and challenges for environmental, economic, and social sustainability in urban futures. Smart Cities, 5(3), 771–801. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities5030040
3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
4. Bolatito, A. O. S. (2019). The role of public administration in corporate social responsibility and sustainability. In Proceedings of the 12th International RAIS Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities (pp. 317-322). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.
5. Bolatito, A. O. S. (2024). TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL POLICY: THE CASE OF SOCIAL SECURITY, PROTECTION AND PUBLIC SERVICES. Islamic University in Uganda Journal of Comparative Law, 8(1), 164-186.
6. Bolatito, M. M. a. a. H. M. a. S. (2025c). Urban Growth and Challenges of Local Government administration in Somalia; Case study Benadir region. International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.56472/25835238/irjems-v4i4p109
7. Calderón-Argelich, A., Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., & Baró, F. (2023). Greening plans as (re)presentation of the city: Toward an inclusive and gender-sensitive approach to urban greenspaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 86, Article 127984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127984
8. Deep, G. (2023). Evaluating the impact of community engagement in urban planning on sustainable development. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 20(3), 1633–1638. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.20.3.2453
9. Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.
10. Gearin, E., & Hurt, C. S. (2024). Making space: A new way for community engagement in the urban planning process. Sustainability, 16(5), Article 2039. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052039
11. Geekiyanage, D., Fernando, T., & Keraminiyage, K. (2023). Modelling interrelationships of the factors impeding community engagement in risk-sensitive urban planning: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Sustainability, 15(20), Article 14662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014662
12. Huang, B.-X., Li, W.-Y., Ma, W.-J., & Xiao, H. (2023). Space accessibility and equity of urban green space. Land, 12(4), Article 766. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040766
13. Nieuwenhuijsen, M., de Nazelle, A., Cirach Pradas, M., Daher, C., Dzhambov, A. M., Echave, C., Gössling, S., Iungman, T., Khreis, H., Kirby, N., Khomenko, S., Leth, U., Lorenz, F., Matkovic, V., Müller, J., Palència, L., Pereira Barboza, E., Pérez, K., Tatah, L., ... Mueller, N. (2024). The Superblock model: A review of an innovative urban model for sustainability, liveability, health and well-being. Environmental Research, 251, Article 118550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118550
14. Owuondo, J. (2024). Community engagement in urban planning: A catalyst for sustainable development. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(4), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804014
15. United Nations. (n.d.). Goal 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/
16. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2022). World cities report 2022: Envisaging the future of cities. UN-Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/wcr/
17. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
18. Zaki, A. (2023). Community engagement and participation in the implementation of sustainable urban planning and renewable energy integration: Lessons from Tashkent. The American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(7), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajas/Volume05Issue07-07