Chapter 2. Community-Driven Solutions: Participatory Approaches to Engineering

Introduction

Humanitarian engineering practice does not happen in a vacuum. It is shaped by technical problems situated in different communities with diverse social needs, cultural backgrounds and uncertain situations. For example, introducing a new type of stove or cooking technology to a community without considering their traditional cooking methods, available fuels, or cultural preferences can lead to unintended consequences. To work in humanitarian engineering, engineers need more than technical skills; they must also understand the broader social and cultural forces that shape every project or intervention. The success and lasting impact of engineering solutions depend more on including and supporting the communities they are meant to help [1]. That is why it is necessary to consider participatory approaches to engineering, which began in the 1970s, to encourage engineers to exchange knowledge and initiate conversations that lead to working with communities to make decisions together [2].

The participatory approach to engineering is a set of values-driven practices to invite solution makers to place communities at the heart of the design, implementation, and maintenance of infrastructure and technology solutions. It moves beyond traditional top-down models by recognising the lived experiences, knowledge systems, cultural values, and aspirations of local people, especially those who are marginalised or underrepresented [3]. That is the foundation of a community-driven solution: one that respects stakeholders’ context, not only includes their voices but also reads their background, facilitates their ideation, and merges their concepts into the technical concept, all to respond to a solution aligned with the community’s values.

In fields such as urban planning, environmental sciences, water management, and climate resilience, participatory approaches are not merely tools to be used but also common practices that invite engineers to be reflective, humble, and open to sharing power [1]. These approaches are not without challenges. Engineers must navigate conflicting social interests, institutional resistance, and uncertainty in the information available for technical advice. That is why, in humanitarian engineering contexts, meaningful community engagement is not optional; it is essential. This chapter explores the fundamental principles of community engagement by introducing the levels of participation, the A-B-C framework for community engagement, methods for gathering information from communities, and practical case studies that highlight both successes and challenges in participatory engineering.

Community engagement

Community engagement is the process of building and maintaining relationships with the people who benefit from or are affected by a process, project, or intervention [1, 2]. The word community refers to the who, and engagement refers to the how. There are multiple reasons to explore how to communicate with and involve people in a design process or engineering project, and multiple ways to approach different communities. Community engagement is at the heart of humanitarian engineering. It ensures that engineering projects are developed with, rather than for, communities, ultimately leading to more sustainable and impactful solutions [1, 2].

Engineers have the responsibility to engage with communities at different stages of a project’s life cycle. Community engagement serves to:

1. Build trust, desire to cooperate, and create long-term commitment.
2. Maximise and share the project’s benefits.
3. Mitigate negative impacts on communities.
4. Improve project delivery and outcomes (time and results).

Engineering projects, particularly in developing communities, benefit from the participation of people and approaches that respect local knowledge and involve stakeholders in decision-making. Engaging communities effectively ensures that solutions align with cultural values, promote environmental sustainability, and support economic viability [1, 2]. Too often, public engagement relies on poorly framed questions that overlook community insight. Max Hardy, an expert in collaborative decision-making, shows how asking better, more open-ended questions can unlock local knowledge, strengthen outcomes, and deepen democratic participation. In this TEDx talk, he shares practical wisdom from decades of designing inclusive, thoughtful engagement processes across Australia and beyond:

Levels of community engagement

A “successful engagement” depends on choosing the right level of community involvement based on how complex the project is, what the community needs, and how local decision-making works. Community engagement can range from simply asking for opinions to fully involving people in decision-making (See Figure 1: IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation). The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) created a system with five levels of public participation, each indicating the degree of community involvement. On one side is the goal of involving people; on the other side is the promise made to the public. Knowing these levels helps humanitarian engineers pick the best way for each situation. Examples and details of each level will be explained below:

1. Informing: Sharing project-related information with communities

At this foundational level, the primary goal is to provide stakeholders with accurate and comprehensive information to help them understand the issues, alternatives, and potential solutions. The informer´s commitment is to keep the public informed, ensuring transparency and building trust.

2. Consulting: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Projects

The objective is to obtain public input to inform decision-making processes. The consultant agrees to consider this input and provide feedback on how it influenced the final decision. Standard techniques encompass public comment periods, focus groups, surveys, and public meetings. While consulting allows for public involvement, the final decision-making authority remains with the consultant.

4. Collaborating: Partnering with communities in each aspect of decision-making

Collaboration involves partnering with the public at every stage of the decision-making process, including developing alternatives and identifying preferred solutions. The aim is to work with the public on all facets of the decision-making process and to incorporate public advice and recommendations to the maximum extent possible. Approaches may involve citizen advisory committees, consensus-building processes, and participatory decision-making forums. This level reflects a high degree of public involvement, with shared responsibility in crafting outcomes.

5. Empowering: Enabling communities to take leadership roles in projects

Empowerment means the community leads. Empowerment represents the highest level of public participation, where decision-making authority is placed in the hands of the public. The goal is to facilitate community-driven decision-making, with the agency implementing the public’s decisions. This approach is often used in scenarios such as citizen juries, ballots, or delegated decision-making processes. Empowering ensures that the community has the ultimate control over outcomes, reflecting a profound level of trust and partnership between the agency and the public.

The A-B-C of community engagement

Community engagement in humanitarian engineering is about fostering authentic relationships and genuine participation. Whether through structured consultations, immersive experiences, or collaborative design, humanitarian engineers must prioritise inclusive decision-making and cultural awareness. As humanitarian engineers, we must remember: Communities are not just data points; they are partners in the process for social justice. The scholars and practitioners Amy Smith and Ben Linder, in their booklet adapted from design course materials from MIT and Olin College for the International Development Design Summit Workbook, mention “three ways to gather information: Observe, Ask, Try” [10]. See the open resource at:

For the purposes of this textbook, I call the same three actions the A-B-C model of community engagement and reorder them as Ask, Observe, and Try. In this book, I present them as a basic action framework for community engagement in humanitarian engineering, comprising three engagement stages or actions to guide interaction with a community during the development or planning of a humanitarian engineering intervention. A comprehensive case study using the A-B-C Model is presented in Chapter 6.

A – Ask: No decisions about us without us!

Effective engagement begins with active listening [10]. Humanitarian engineers must ask the right questions and include communities in the decision-making process. A compelling example is the Buenaventura Highway Project in Colombia. This major infrastructure project, intended to connect the Pacific coast to the city of Cali, took more than 20 years to complete due to social, political, and environmental challenges. The project affected Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities, who owned the land under Law 90. While civil engineers conducted consultations, many critical insights from local communities were ignored, such as the question of why build the road specifically in the sacred places? How are the legal and environmental consents given? Who directly benefits from the road construction? All those unanswered questions lead to costly delays and social resistance. This case highlights the importance of genuine, inclusive engagement [1].

Methods for asking and listening

• Surveys: Using structured questions to gather broad perspectives and capture the stakeholders´ vision of the problem.
• Narration & Storytelling: Encouraging community members to share their histories and experiences in their best way: oral, written or visual. It’s important to listen without interruptions. Avoid too many questions that can interrupt the natural flow of storytelling.
• Participatory Mapping: Co-creating a visual representation of community resources and needs.
• Self-documentation: Encouraging community members to document their daily realities through photos or journals.

B – Observe: seeing what people see

Observation allows humanitarian engineers to understand local conditions beyond what is explicitly stated [10]. It is an exercise of empathy. An example comes from a Cambodian village affected by HIV transmission. Initially, an Australian medical team focused on direct HIV prevention education. However, a local woman pointed out that rebuilding a collapsed bridge would have a more significant impact on reducing the spread of HIV. The loss of the bridge forced men to travel long distances to markets, leading to increased interactions with sex workers and higher transmission rates. This case underscores the importance of understanding systemic challenges rather than addressing only the visible symptoms.

Techniques for observation

• “Using all senses” [10]: Noticing social interactions, environmental conditions, and economic activities.
• “Shadowing key individuals” [10]: Learning about daily routines by accompanying community members, with respect, their preliminary consent, and permission.
• Participatory Mapping: Identifying critical infrastructure, social needs, priorities, and resource flows and dynamics.

C – Try: Just do it!

Beyond asking and observing, humanitarian engineers must immerse themselves in the community’s lived experience [10]. Participate in community members’ social dynamics and interactions to understand their needs and assess potential approaches to tackle them. Participatory approaches allow humanitarian engineers to validate assumptions and refine solutions. Gathering data from communities requires sensitivity and respect. Humanitarian engineers must introduce themselves and clarify their purpose, obtain consent before recording any data, and begin with open-ended, non-invasive questions to build trust, always prioritising listening over leading the conversation. At the conclusion of an engagement, it is equally important to express gratitude, manage expectations by explaining how the input will be used, and follow up when possible, to maintain communication and provide feedback.

Practical engagement methods

• Extended immersion – Living in the community for an extended period.
• Comparative experiences – Understanding different perspectives by working in diverse conditions.
• Scenarios & Role-Playing – Simulating potential project impacts and community responses.

Participatory Methods in Engineering Practice

The participatory approach is also an invitation to reshape engineering outcomes: not only to deliver effective technical solutions, but also to build deeper trust and achieve more lasting results rooted in the desire to benefit communities. Participatory tools facilitate shared understanding, critical reflection, and inclusive decision-making [11, 12]. In fields such as environmental sciences, social sciences, economics, and planning, as well as various engineering disciplines, participatory approaches have been adopted and adapted to specific situations and contexts [1]. These approaches can be applied in humanitarian interventions when planning engineering projects with communities. Some standard tools for co-design engineering solutions are described in Amy Smith and Ben Linder’s booklet, International Development Design Summit Workbook [10], which includes: stakeholder analysis, problem framing, and Sketch Modelling. The Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex describes additional participatory tools for gathering information from a community in order to co-develop solutions, such as body mapping, time sequencing, rivers of life, collaborative making, mapping and power analysis, immersive research, and group storytelling, which are key to participatory research. More methods and resources are available online:

The following section presents three methods for implementing a participatory approach in the humanitarian engineering context:

• Systems thinking mapping.
• Prospective Structural Analysis.
• Participatory modelling.

Systems Thinking mapping

Rooted in complex systems theory [13], the systems thinking approach provides the conceptual foundation for all the participatory tools discussed in this chapter. This holistic approach views problems as part of interconnected social, environmental, economic, and technical systems rather than as isolated issues [13]. As reviewed in Chapter 1, this mindset is essential in humanitarian engineering, where interventions often have widespread effects across multiple domains and stakeholder groups. It also emphasises that there may not be just one technical solution to a problem, but rather an interconnected set of factors that contribute to building systems. Consequently, a systemic approach is necessary for effectively addressing these challenges [13].

How It Works: 

1. Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs): Use visual maps showing feedback loops and interactions among system components. Useful for identifying reinforcing or balancing dynamics [13].
2. Stock-and-flow models: Quantify resources (stocks) and their changes over time (flows) [13].
3. Rich pictures: Qualitative visual representations drawn collaboratively with community members to depict the system, its stakeholders, issues, and relationships [13].

 

Prospective Structural Analysis

Created by Michel Godet and primarily used in systems thinking and futures studies, prospective structural analysis (PSA) identifies the relationships among key variables in a system and their potential future interactions [14]. It helps engineering teams and communities assess leverage points, cascading impacts, and the role of uncertainty [14]. PSA is a way to analyse complex systems and identify which parts matter most. It is a tool to prioritise where to focus efforts when tackling a complex problem or where to start. It is particularly valuable during recovery and resilience planning, where multiple interdependencies—physical, social, institutional, environmental, etc.— must be considered in parallel.

Then, a matrix called a “matrix of influences” is created using the MICMAC method (Matrix of Cross Impact Multiplications Applied to Classification) [16] to show how much each factor in a system affects the others. Communities then identify and prioritise the most influential and most dependent factors. A software tool can then generate a graph that maps influence and dependence, helping to visualise the relationships. This map is shared with the community so they can collectively decide which factors are most relevant. The process helps determine whether a factor’s influence on the problem or its dependence on other issues should be prioritised and therefore addressed [14, 15, 16].

Humanitarian engineers can use this method to visualise structural influences and plan interventions with a long-term view. You start by listing all the important factors, then see how each affects the others. For each pair, you think about whether one factor influences the other. You put a number or symbol in the box to show if the influence is strong, weak, or not present. When the matrix is filled out, you can clearly see which factors have the most influence and which ones are most affected by others [15].  By looking at these relationships, you can find out which factors have the biggest impact and how changes in one area might influence the rest. This helps you anticipate what might happen in the future and plan better, for example, by recognising that community training could be the key to success in a sanitation project [14, 16].

This method engages stakeholders in imagining diverse future states—both desirable and undesirable—to explore the consequences of different development choices. Scenarios are not predictions, but narratives that illuminate risks, trade-offs, and ethical concerns. In engineering, it can be used for scenario planning to support the design of adaptable systems that are robust under a range of futures. This approach is particularly relevant in large infrastructure projects that carry significant ecological, social, and geopolitical implications. Future scenario planning enables engineers and communities to explore “what if” pathways under deep uncertainty and co-create multiple scenarios to compare trade-offs and possible outcomes across options.

Example Prospective Structural Analysis. Hypothetical Scenario: Flood Emergency in Lyttelton, Canterbury, New Zealand

Projections indicate that a 1 metre rise in sea level will increasingly expose Lyttelton’s lower township and port-side areas to flooding, even during moderate rain and high tides. King tides combined with heavy rainfall will more frequently overwhelm stormwater systems, while tidal surges will push seawater into low-lying streets and infrastructure. Residential areas, local businesses, and port operations are at risk, with additional concerns about saltwater intrusion into groundwater and harbour contamination, which could affect marine ecosystems and local fishing. As a humanitarian engineering team, you are working alongside Christchurch City Council, Ngāti Wheke, Lyttelton Port Company, and local community networks to plan and adapt [17].

Your objectives:

• Immediate: Assess vulnerable infrastructure, reduce short-term flood impacts, and engage the community in risk awareness.

• Medium-term: Upgrade drainage, strengthen coastal defences, and identify adaptive land use strategies.

• Long-term: Co-design climate-resilient solutions that safeguard livelihoods, cultural heritage, and port operations, integrating local knowledge and sustainable practices.

Consider limited budgets, urgent planning timelines, and cultural values to ensure solutions are both technically robust and community-supported.

• List the factors – First, the community and engineers together list and describe all the essential issues related to the problem (e.g., sanitation, water quality, drainage, health risks):

Stormwater Drainage Capacity

Coastal Defence Infrastructure (sea walls, breakwaters)

Land Use and Zoning (low-lying areas)

Community Preparedness and Awareness

Port Operations and Infrastructure

Emergency Response Systems

• Check connections – For each factor, the group discusses:

  • How much does it influence the other factors?

  • How much does it depend on the other factors?

  • 

• Vote or rate – Communities give scores (or “votes”) to show which factors are most influential and which are most dependent. For example, you might use: (2) for strong influence, (1) for weak influence, (0) for no influence.

  Factors	Drainage	Coastal Defence	Land Use	Preparedness	Port Ops	Ecosystem	Emergency Response
  Drainage	–	3	2	2	2	1	2
  Coastal Defence	2	–	3	1	3	2	1
  Land Use	2	2	–	1	2	2	1
  Preparedness	1	1	1	–	1	1	3
  Port Ops	2	2	2	1	–	2	2
  Ecosystem	1	2	2	1	2	–	1
  Emergency Response	1	1	1	3	2	1	–

• Build the map – A simple software or chart creates a map showing the influence–dependence relationship.

• Decide priorities – Highly influential Factors become priority actions because they will create the most significant positive change

Participatory Modelling

Participatory Modelling (PM), or modelling with Stakeholders, is a practice with roots in the environmental sciences that offers valuable insights for engineers. The methodology involves collaborating with stakeholders to create models, validate them, and simulate scenarios to represent reality, using collaborative and systems thinking to understand what the system we aim to represent means [1, 18]. Over the past two decades, environmental researchers have developed robust frameworks for co-designing system models with stakeholders rather than merely consulting them. These efforts emerged in response to widespread dissatisfaction with traditional consultation methods, which too often failed to build trust or produce actionable consensus [1, 18]. Instead, PM emphasises three vital lessons:

1. Listen to stakeholders to gain a richer understanding of the system in context.

2. Collaborate with them to jointly construct models that reflect multiple worldviews and experiences.

3. Co-decide on actions, reinforcing community agency and ethical legitimacy.

This method involves stakeholders directly in the design process from the outset. Through iterative engagement, such as workshops, role-playing, and collaborative prototyping, participants shape both the problem framing and the solution pathways. The process builds mutual trust, captures local knowledge, and enhances legitimacy. For engineers working within complex socio-technical systems, such as urban infrastructure, water governance, or climate adaptation, PM offers more than just a toolkit [1, 18].

On the other hand, participatory design is a collaborative process in which communities actively participate in creating solutions that meet their specific needs and contexts. It ensures that technologies and interventions are culturally relevant and supported by those who will use them. An entire handbook on Participatory Design will illustrate cases, examples, and theories behind the tool.

In participatory design, Appropriate Technology (AT) is a closely related concept that emphasises context-sensitive solutions, while better designs using technology can hint at innovative solutions; contextualised, community-driven solutions might imply a more direct and positive impact on the effectiveness of the design process. According to Murphy et al. (2009), AT is a strategy that helps people improve their livelihoods by meeting basic needs through developing their skills and using available resources in an environmentally sustainable way [19]. AT is understood as technologies used in developing nations [19]. AT is conceived as a broader philosophy that includes knowledge transfer, capacity building, and attention to social, cultural, and gender aspects [19].

References

[1] B. Avendaño-Uribe, M. Milke, and D. Castillo-Brieva, “Participatory modelling: precedents and prospects for civil engineering,” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 93–122, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10286608.2022.2083111.

[2] Acero A, Ramirez-Cajiao MC and Baillie C (2024), “Understanding community engagement from practice: a phenomenographic approach to engineering projects”, Front. Educ. 9:1386729. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1386729.

[3] R. Chambers, “The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal,” World Development, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 953–969, 1994, doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4.

[4] Stockholm Environment Institute. (2024). Wind energy and Wayuu Indigenous communities. https://www.sei.org/features/wind-energu-wayuu-la-guajira/

[5] J. D. Reina‑Rozo, Technologies to Embrace the Sun:“Korolosüpülaojüpataaka’i”. Bogotá, Colombia: Idartes, 2022. ISBN 978‑628‑7531‑06‑2.

[6] M.M. Delgado-Serrano, R. Escalante, S. Basurto. “Is the community-based management of natural resources inherently linked to resilience? An analysis of the Santiago Comaltepec community (Mexico)”. Ager: Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural, núm. 18, enero-junio, 2015, pp. 91-114. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/296/29638681004.pdf

[7] F. R. Valle Díaz, O. Apaza-Apaza, R. I. Rodriguez-Peceros, A. Huamán-Cuya, J. F. Valle-Sherón, J. V. Luque-Rivera, C. V. Dávila-Ignacio, and H. Chaccara-Huachaca, “Sustainability of informal artisanal mining in the Peruvian Andean region,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 21, p. 15586, 2023. doi: 10.3390/su15211586.

[8] GIZ. (2018). Collaborative water governance in Peru: Lessons from Piura. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/water-governance-in-peru_568847b5-en.html

[9] Asian Development Bank, Water and Sanitation in the Pacific: Tonga Water Supply Sector Review and Infrastructure Plan, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.adb.org/projects/documents/tonga-water-supply-sector-review-and-infrastructure-plan

[10] A. Smith and B. Linder, IDDS Design Workbook, 2nd ed. IDIN, 2014. Accessed Feb. 3, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.idin.org/sites/default/files/resources/IDDS%20Design%20Workbook.pdf

[11] A. Voinov and E. B. Gaddis, “Values in participatory modeling: theory and practice,” in Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders: Theory, Methods, and Applications, A. Voinov, S. Kolagani, M. K. McCall, et al., Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2016, pp. 3–27, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25053-3_3.

[12] M. Etienne, Ed., Companion modelling: a participatory approach to support sustainable development. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2014.

[13] J. W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1961.

[14] M. Godet, Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool, 2nd ed. Washington, DC, USA: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.

[15] M. Delgado-Serrano, P. Vanwildemeersch, S. London, C. Ortiz-Guerrero, R. Semerena, and M. Rojas, “Adapting prospective structural analysis to strengthen sustainable management and capacity building in community-based natural resource management contexts,” Ecology and Society, vol. 21, no. 2, Art. no. 36, 2016, doi: 10.5751/ES-08505-210236.

[16] M. Godet & P. Durance, La prospectiva estratégica para las empresas y los territorios. Paris, France: El Cercle des Entrepreneurs du Futur, 2009.

[17] B. E. Avendaño-Uribe, “Playing with uncertainty: participatory modelling to facilitate social and technical investment negotiations for resilience planning,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Civil and Natural Resources Eng., Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/items/6bac03cf-5671-4c0b-8aab-d3c8003d1c28

[18] L. Schmitt-Olabisi, M. McNall, W. Porter, and J. Zhao, Eds., Innovations in Collaborative Modeling. East Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan State University Press, 2020.

[19] H. M. Murphy, E. A. McBean, and K. Farahbakhsh, “Appropriate technology—A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world,” Technology in Society, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 158–167, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.03.010.

[20] B. Cooke and U. Kothari, Eds., Participation: The New Tyranny? London, U.K.: Zed Books, 2001.

Acknowledgement note: 

Special thanks to Senior Lecturer and humanitarian practitioner Amy Smith and her team from MIT D-Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston (USA). Much of the material in this chapter, especially the ABC model and gathering tools, was inspired by her practical experience, workshops, and publications, including the International Development Design Summit Workbook, which is openly available at https://www.idin.org/sites/default/files/resources/IDDS%20Design%20Workbook.pdf, as well as her engineering work in developing communities.

About the author

name: Dr Bryann Avendaño-Uribe

institution: University of Canterbury

website: https://oer.pressbooks.pub/humanitarian-engineering/front-matter/about-the-editor/

Dr Bryann Avendaño-Uribe is a knowledge broker and former Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Guest Lecturer in Humanitarian Engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He holds honours bachelor’s degrees in Science—Biology and Ecology—plus continuing studies certificates in Business and Leadership from Georgetown University (USA) and Modelling and Simulation from CIRAD, Montpellier (France), and a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Canterbury. His research centres on participatory modelling and community engagement for humanitarian engineering, with a focus on developing facilitation tools to translate complex scientific knowledge for non‐scientific audiences. Dr Bryann’s work addresses climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, resilience planning, and environmental education, with a strong emphasis on co‐creation with communities. He actively advocates for scientific education policies and STEM education through his co-founded think tank, Scientelab.