Sustaining the urban commons in Ghana through decentralized planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With global urbanization on the increase and cities now hosting more than half of the planet's population, there are concerns regarding the protection of urban commons as part of sustainability efforts, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Decentralized urban planning is a policy tool and practice that is used to organize urban infrastructure for sustainable development. Yet, how it can be used to sustain the urban commons remains fragmented in the literature. This study reviews and synthesizes urban planning and urban commons literature using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework and the non-cooperative game theory to identify how urban planning can protect and sustain the urban commons - green commons, land commons, and water commons - in Ghana. The study, based on the determination of different theoretical scenarios for the urban commons, identified that decentralized urban planning can help sustain the urban commons, but it is operationalized in an unfavorable political environment. For green commons, there are competing interests and poor coordination amongst planning institutions, and the absence of self-organizing bodies in managing the use of such resources. For land commons, increased land litigations are characterized by corruption and poor management of land cases in the formal land courts, and despite the existence of self-organizing institutions, these institutions have failed to act responsibly to protect land commons due to the increasing demands and values (profitability) of lands in urban areas. For water commons, urban planning has not been fully decentralized and there is also the absence of self-organizing bodies in urban water use and management. This is coupled with the waning of customary water protection provisions in urban centers. Based on the findings, the study generally proposes institutional strengthening as the bedrock for enhancing the sustainability of the urban commons through urban planning and should therefore be of policy focus moving forward.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".