Inclusive cities: stories of exclusion and resistance

In the Cofradía neighborhood of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the El Palmar settlement has been a symbol of resistance against urban exclusion for years. Since 2009, some 200 families have transformed land without title deeds into their homes, betting on building a community in a country where 80% of private land lacks formal registration. However, this fragile stability is constantly threatened by eviction attempts driven by both private interests and court rulings.

El Palmar faced a critical moment in March 2024. National Police officers attempted to execute a court order forcing families to leave the land, which had been granted to an individual according to the ruling. Residents, some of whom had lived in the area for more than 15 years, reported that they had not received prior notification and claimed that the land belonged to the state. For her part, the judge in the case told the media that the land is “private property protected by the state.” “We have nowhere to live, nowhere to go,” lamented one resident, summing up the sentiment of a community fighting for its right to remain.

This case highlights the tensions between the right to the city and the structural exclusion faced by the most vulnerable communities. Recognizing these multiple tensions, in this blog we will discuss how civic participation and access to safe public spaces can be key elements in reducing them. Through experiences such as those in El Palmar, San Pedro Sula (Honduras), Porto Alegre (Brazil), Cotacachi (Ecuador), and Umeå (Sweden), we want to highlight the urgent need to develop policies that promote inclusion.

Civic space—the freedom of people to assemble, express themselves, and participate in public life—is fundamental to democracy. However, this space cannot exist in a vacuum; it needs a physical and social environment to support it. When these spaces are privatized or inaccessible, not only is the community fabric weakened, but so is the ability of citizens to organize, deliberate, and demand rights.

Civic space and inclusive cities: a vital connection

Inclusive cities, defined by the World Charter for the Right to the City as “a culturally rich and diverse collective space that belongs to all its inhabitants,” provide an environment where all people can exercise their rights and participate fully in urban life. To achieve this, it is not enough to guarantee accessible squares, parks, and community spaces; it is essential to implement public policies that prioritize social well-being over economic interests.

Cases such as El Palmar, where entire communities face eviction without viable housing alternatives, show how the absence of public power in protecting these spaces allows privatization to advance, transferring their management and access to the control of private actors. These situations are not isolated, but part of a recurring pattern in which vulnerable populations are exposed to judicial and administrative decisions that privilege private property without considering the right to housing and to the city.

The families who built their lives in these territories are left in a vulnerable situation, facing threats of eviction without effective mechanisms of defense. This, in turn, not only physically limits access to spaces for collective interaction—affecting community life and social organization—but also deepens social exclusion by restricting the right to live and participate.

In this way, urban policies that privilege private interests erode inclusion and close off possibilities for civic and democratic action. In other words, El Palmar reminds us that the right to the city is not just an abstract aspiration, but a concrete struggle that demands inclusive urban policies committed to ensuring that all its inhabitants have a home and a space to exercise their citizenship.

Now, let us imagine cities where every inhabitant, regardless of their economic or social situation, has a place to belong and access to quality public services, accessible transportation, and safe community spaces. In these environments, citizen participation would not only be a right, but a tangible reality, a fundamental part of the social fabric that fosters greater cohesion and well-being. This model of an inclusive and equitable city, as pointed out by UN-Habitat, is strengthened through participatory mechanisms such as participatory budgeting and collective decision-making. In this way, a spatial justice approach contributes to a better distribution of resources and strengthens democracy and the public sphere, ensuring that all citizens have a voice in shaping their environment.

A transformative vision: Porto Alegre, Cotacachi, and Umeå

In contrast, the participatory budgeting model in Porto Alegre, Brazil, demonstrates how inclusive policies can revitalize civic space. Since 1989, this city has allowed its residents to decide how public resources are distributed.

In local assemblies and thematic forums, communities prioritize their needs, from improving sanitation to building schools. This process has transformed public management and also strengthened the social fabric. As a result, people have a space to make their voices heard and actively contribute to the management of their city. Porto Alegre shows that when a city prioritizes inclusion, it also strengthens its democracy.

Another inspiring example is the canton of Cotacachi in Ecuador, where the inclusion of women and indigenous peoples in public decision-making processes has been actively promoted. The canton of Santa Ana de Cotacachi is located in the province of Imbabura, Ecuador, and has more than 37,250 inhabitants (80% of whom live in rural areas). The municipality is characterized by strong ethnic and cultural diversity: 60% of the population is indigenous Quechua, 35% is white-mestizo, and 5% is Afro-Ecuadorian.

Through participatory mechanisms such as participatory budgeting and citizen assemblies, greater representation of historically excluded groups has been achieved. This commitment to intercultural democracy has led to significant transformations: projects focused on community health, education, and rural development with a gender and cultural belonging approach have been implemented. Cotacachi shows that even in territories with fewer economic resources, strong political will and a participatory approach can lead to more inclusive cities, where equity and diversity are pillars of local governance.

Beyond material achievements, both Porto Alegre and Cotacachi show that inclusion is a process that strengthens social cohesion and expands opportunities for democratic participation. In the words of Rendón Corona (2004), participatory budgeting “promotes social cohesion and expands opportunities for democratic participation, even in the face of legal or budgetary constraints.

A complementary experience can be found in Umeå, Sweden, where urban planning has actively incorporated a gender perspective to ensure that the city’s development reflects the needs of the entire population. This small city in northern Europe has implemented innovative strategies, such as gender audits in the design of public spaces and differentiated citizen consultations, to ensure that women, older people, children, and minority groups have a voice in how their environment is shaped.

One concrete example has been the transformation of urban spaces based on an analysis of women’s daily routines, which has led to improvements in lighting, safety, and accessibility. Umeå demonstrates that inclusion can also emerge from urban planning that is sensitive to everyday inequalities, and that when public policies are designed based on the lived experience of residents, a more just, safe, and participatory city is promoted for all people.

Building cities for everyone

The history of El Palmar and the examples of Porto Alegre, Cotacachi, and Umeå represent opposite ends of a spectrum. The first illustrates how exclusion can dismantle communities; the others show how inclusion can empower them. Although both cases are valuable, it is important to recognize their differences in terms of scale and context. For example, Porto Alegre, a Brazilian capital with significant economic and political weight, has resources and institutional structures that enable broader and deeper interventions. El Palmar, on the other hand, is a much smaller and more vulnerable community, where solutions must be adapted to a more limited reality in terms of state capacity and available resources.

However, these differences should not be seen as insurmountable barriers, but rather as starting points for rethinking how to build inclusive cities based on their particularities. In cities with greater resources, the priority may be to expand citizen participation through mechanisms such as participatory budgeting, while in smaller, more vulnerable communities, the focus may be on strengthening the community fabric by protecting basic rights and creating safe spaces for deliberation.

Although the path to urban inclusion varies depending on the context, the realities share a fundamental principle: the need to place people at the center of public policy and recognize that inclusive cities are not just an aspiration, but a collective construction that can be realized at different levels, from local community initiatives to national urban planning strategies.

As the case of El Palmar shows, the lack of policies to protect vulnerable communities weakens the social fabric and restricts the exercise of fundamental rights. On the other hand, other experiences show that when citizens actively participate in the management of their environment, democracy and social cohesion are strengthened. Both experiences invite us to reflect: What kind of city do we want to build? Protecting civic space and ensuring inclusive cities are not isolated tasks, but complementary strategies. While civic space guarantees the active participation of all people, inclusive cities ensure that these spaces are accessible, safe, and diverse.

Building inclusive cities is not just a matter of infrastructure or technical regulations; it is above all a political and social commitment to ensure that all people have a decent place to live, participate, and develop fully. These cities do not arise spontaneously: they are built day by day in the way we inhabit public space, in the policies we demand, and in the communities we weave and strengthen.

Although the state has an unavoidable responsibility in this process, ensuring the existence of inclusive cities also falls to those who live in them. Our everyday decisions—from how we relate to our environment to the degree of involvement in our communities—collectively shape the kind of urban society we want to build.

However, recognizing the value of citizen participation should not lead us to idealize it as a single solution. Participation is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. If it is not backed by public investment that allows collective decisions to be turned into concrete actions, its transformative power is diluted and trust in these processes is eroded. Therefore, the path to truly inclusive cities requires a shared commitment: an active and demanding citizenry, and responsible institutions with political will and allocated resources. Are we ready, on both sides, to take on this challenge?*

*This global blog was written by María Alejandra Centeno, Global South Fellow in the International Area, and Sofía Forero Alba, researcher in the International Area.