Applying the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework for Community-Based, Urban Nature-Based Solutions: Informal Settlement Upgrading Projects in Bangkok

There is great interest in promoting urban nature-based solutions for informal settlements in the global south, for their contributions to climate change adaptation and disaster reduction, alongside other potential social, environmental, and economic benefits. However, top-down solutions might lead to unsatisfactory or even unjust results, while ground-up initiatives might remain under-resourced and difficult to scale. Taking a wider perspective, this research explores the social conditions, governance, and institutions which enable or disable the development of urban nature-based solutions and influence their outcomes in policy targeted at informal housing improvement. This research-in-progress first attempts to (1) adapt the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework by Elinor Ostrom for informal housing communities, before (2) applying the framework to the case of 3 upgraded informal settlement projects in Bangkok. By conceptualizing communal urban nature-based solutions such as shared green space as novel commons, we explore the use of the IAD framework as a tool to analyze opportunities and obstacles for different stakeholders – policymakers, community leaders, community members, NGOs, and academics – to take collective action to implement and maintain communal nature-based solutions across different stages of the informal housing upgrading process.

The IAD framework has been mostly used to analyze socio-ecological systems whereby users have to manage an ecological resource they share and are all economically dependent on, such as timber or fish. However, shared urban nature-based solutions in informal settlement may not fit this definition, even if some economic benefits can be reaped e.g. from selling produce from community gardens. Yet, urban nature-based solutions are important in helping communities adapt to disasters and enhance their climate resilience. For example, green spaces can provide some cooling effect in the context of increased temperatures and contribute to food security of the communities. We refer to the literature to adapt the IAD framework into one that is better fit for the purpose of understanding urban-nature-based solutions and the role they play in promoting the climate resilience and adaptative capacities of marginalized urban communities, draw on other concepts like collective action and novel commons, and incorporate different stakeholder roles into the model.

Thereafter, we attempt to apply the adapted framework to the case of community gardens in upgraded informal settlements in Bangkok under the government’s Baan Mankong project. We draw on previous and ongoing research, which includes surveys, interviews, and observational data on the development of community gardens and their perceived benefits to community members in each settlement, and levels of participation with regards to the community garden. The Baan Mankong project is an example of collective housing upgrading and is noted for its scale and for being a government-driven, institutionalized policy rather than initiated by NGOs. By applying the IAD and corroborating them with field data where possible, we not only illustrate the use of the framework in policy targeting informal housing improvement and nature-based solutions but also contribute empirical insights and identify hypotheses for future research on the Thai context.