Review Article,  Int J Glob Health Vol: 14 Issue: 1

Barriers to Integration of Collaborative Governance in ESIA in Urban Development Projects-A Critical Review

Innocent Charles Omondi Akendo^1*, Bessy Kathambi² and Thuita Thenya³

Department of Environmental Sciences, Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

*Corresponding Author: Innocent Charles Omondi Akendo,
Department of Environmental Sciences, Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail:chomondi@gmail.com

Received date: 01 August, 2025, Manuscript No. JBMF-25-168416;

Editor assigned date: 04 August, 2025, PreQC No. JBMF-25-168416 (PQ);

Reviewed date: 20 August, 2025, QC No. JBMF-25-168416;

Revised date: 03 October, 2025, Manuscript No. JBMF-25-168416 (R);

Published date: 10 October, 2025, DOI: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000072.

Citation: Akendo ICO, Kathambi B, Thenya T (2025) Barriers to Integration of Collaborative Governance in ESIA in Urban Development Projects-A Critical Review. J Biodivers Manage Forestry 14:1.

Abstract

Keywords: Collaborative governance, Environmental and social impact assessment, Urban development, Policy barriers, Institutional barriers, CG implementation barriers, PRISMA Framework

Introduction

In Kenya, 60% of the population now lives in urban areas, with this figure expected to reach 70% by 2030 [1]. This population is living in urban residential areas either as tenants or on subdivided lands [2].

Kenya, with an urbanization rate of 4.2% per annum, has been struggling to provide adequate housing, infrastructure, and social amenities for its growing urban population [3]. Nairobi exemplifies this trend with a rapid expanding urban sprawl with an estimated population of over 5 million and an annual growth rate of 4% [4], leading to increased pressure on natural resources and urban infrastructure. This growth often results in significant environmental and social impacts, necessitating robust environmental and social impact assessment processes [5]. Nairobi's growth has been remarkable, spurred by interconnected factors, with land use analysis showing built-up areas increasing by an average of 1.49 km2 /year [6]. The notable environmental impact of this growth over the past decade, the number of mini-landfills and open waste sites on roadsides has doubled, indicating a severe strain on the city's waste management infrastructure [7].

Globally, urbanization poses both opportunities and challenges; cities drive economic growth but also face issues like inequality and climate change vulnerability [8]. Urban development projects, spanning extensive infrastructure networks, residential complexes, and dynamic commercial hubs, exert a significant influence on the urban ecosystem and the quality of life for city dwellers, with the potential to induce substantial shifts in air and water quality, biodiversity, and community well-being [9].

Currently, it is estimated that the percentage of urban development projects in Nairobi that fully implement the CG in ESIA is between 10% to 15%, leading to deficiencies that [10] terms inadequate stakeholder engagement, limited transparency, and potential conflicts among developers, local communities, and environmental agencies. For example, the construction of the Nairobi expressway faced significant opposition from local communities due to inadequate consultation during the ESIA phase, resulting in project delays and increased costs.

This is despite the fact that projects with strong stakeholder engagement are, on average, 30% more likely to achieve their sustainability goals [11]. Studies have shown that projects incorporating collaborative governance principles experience a 25% reduction in environmental conflicts and a 40% increase in community satisfaction [12].

The cost of neglecting collaborative governance in ESIA can be substantial, potentially manifesting as project delays due to legal challenges and community resistance, increased litigation expenses stemming from disputes over environmental impacts, and significant reputational damage affecting investor confidence and public trust [13]. Poorly managed construction sites contribute to a 15% increase in soil erosion and water pollution in affected areas; while lack of community involvement leads to an increase in project-related conflicts and delays by at least 20%.

Projects delayed due to social and environmental issues experience an average cost overrun of 10% to 15%. Stalled or poorly implemented urban development projects in Kenya, often due to inadequate stakeholder collaboration, represent a loss [14]. It is estimated that the lack of effective collaborative governance in ESIA contributes to a 15% increase in environmental degradation associated with urban projects annually. This includes increased pollution, habitat loss, and strain on water resources and that effective collaborative governance in ESIA processes can reduce these impacts by up to 40%.

Exclusion of marginalized communities from ESIA processes affects approximately 40% of Nairobi's urban population, leading to inequitable distribution of resources and increased social tensions [15].

While Kenya has a robust legal and regulatory framework for ESIA, including the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) of 1999 and its subsequent amendments, the practical application and effectiveness of these regulations, particularly concerning collaborative governance, remain a challenge [16]. Effective implementation of collaborative governance in ESIA processes can lead to a 20% improvement in project outcomes, including reduced environmental impacts and enhanced social benefits.

For example, a recent assessment of ESIA implementation in urban areas of Kenya indicated that stakeholder consultation occurs in only an estimated 35% of development projects, and meaningful engagement, where stakeholder input genuinely influences project design, is even lower, at approximately 15% [17]. Furthermore, only 20% of ESIA reports adequately address socio-economic impacts, and even fewer, about 10%, incorporate indigenous knowledge or local ecological knowledge, sidelining critical community-specific insights. In about 70% of urban development projects, local communities report that their concerns raised during ESIA consultations are not adequately addressed in the final project design.

The challenge is intensified by the fact that less than 50% of ESIA regulations in Kenya explicitly mandate stakeholder engagement, resulting in processes that are largely top-down and technocratic [18]. Of the ESIA reports reviewed, only 30% demonstrated clear evidence of feedback loops, wherein community concerns were incorporated into project design modifications or mitigation measures, and less than 20% included provisions for ongoing monitoring and adaptive management based on community. Effective use of EIA, particularly on process-related issues, could significantly minimize adverse environmental effects. This policy gap contributes to a situation where only 25% of affected communities feel their concerns are adequately addressed during ESIA consultations and alarmingly, less than 15% express confidence that their input yields tangible influence on project outcomes, highlighting a critical imperative for reinforcing policy frameworks to foster genuinely inclusive and participatory ESIA processes in urban development [19]. Moreover, an over-reliance on standard environmental impact assessment practices that primarily function as reactive measures for conflict resolution further complicates the problem [20].

Conflicting policy objectives across government agencies undermine collaborative governance efforts, with an estimated 35% of projects facing conflicts between economic development priorities and environmental protection goals [21]. A fragmented institutional landscape reduces the effectiveness of collaborative efforts by an estimated 20% due to bureaucratic hurdles and conflicting priorities.

A study found that an average of 7 different government agencies are involved in the approval process for major urban development projects in Nairobi, with overlaps and inconsistencies in their mandates contributing to delays and a lack of a unified approach to ESIA and stakeholder engagement Fragmented governance structures result in unclear lines of accountability, with only an estimated 40% of ESIA reports clearly identifying the responsible parties for implementing mitigation measures and monitoring environmental impacts [22]. Overlaps and gaps in institutional mandates contribute to a lack of coordination and integrated planning, decreasing the effectiveness of collaborative governance in ESIA processes. Less than 60% of government agencies responsible for ESIA have adequate staffing and resources to effectively engage stakeholders.

Bureaucratic procedures and poor coordination among agencies contribute to delays and inefficiencies, with ESIA processes taking, on average, 18 months to complete, compared to an ideal timeframe of 12 months. These bureaucratic hurdles result in increased costs for developers and discourage investment in sustainable urban development practice [23]. Cumbersome approval processes and inconsistent enforcement of regulations further undermine the effectiveness of collaborative governance in ESIA, with less than 50% of approved ESIA reports undergoing regular monitoring and evaluation to ensure compliance with mitigation measures. Permitting processes are frequently inefficient [24].

Successful regulation is based on impartial evaluation and discussions with relevant subject matter expertise [25].

It is estimated that the budget allocated for stakeholder engagement in ESIA processes for urban development projects in Nairobi constitutes less than 5% of the total ESIA budget in approximately 70% of cases. Additionally, less than 30% of ESIA practitioners in Kenya receive formal training in collaborative governance techniques or participatory planning methods. Limited investment in capacity building hinders the development of essential skills among ESIA practitioners, impeding their ability to effectively facilitate stakeholder engagement and build consensus among diverse interest groups [26].

A survey that approximately 65% of residents in urban development project areas reported having limited or no access to information regarding the potential environmental and social impacts of these projects and the ESIA process [27]. The finding suggests that language barriers, technical jargon, and a lack of culturally appropriate communication strategies further exacerbate this challenge, particularly among marginalised communities.

Literature Review

The review paper follows the PRISMA 2020 framework to ensure a rigorous and transparent approach to surveying and analyzing relevant studies. The PRISMA 2020 framework consists of a detailed checklist outlining essential items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, guiding the structured search, screening, eligibility assessment, and data extraction processes [28]. The search strategy involved utilizing relevant keywords and search terms related to collaborative governance, ESIA, and Urban development projects across Google Scholar database sources. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to ensure that only relevant studies were included in the review.

Specifically, studies that explicitly address the barriers to collaborative governance in ESIA within the context of urban development projects were included, while studies that focus solely on theoretical aspects of collaborative governance or ESIA without a specific urban development context were excluded. The data extraction process involved systematically collecting relevant information from the included studies.

Google Scholar year-wise results were eventually downloaded using Publish or Perish software version: 8.17.4863 (11th March 2025) and respective citations and referencing collected and organized using Zotero software version: 7.0.15 (16th March 2025). First, Publish or Perish software was used to identify key academic papers by analyzing citation metrics across databases ensuring research focus with relevant papers, then, the papers were stored, categorized and annotated within Zotero allowing for efficient reference management and organization.

Data synthesis involved a thematic analysis of the extracted data to identify common themes and patterns related to the barriers to collaborative governance in ESIA [29]. The findings from the review were presented in a clear and concise manner [30], highlighting the key barriers to collaborative governance in ESIA and providing recommendations for future research and practice

Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the different stages and aspects of the literature review process discussed above. It highlights the interconnectedness of the methodological framework [31], the search strategy, eligibility focus and the requirements for data extraction and synthesis.

Table 1: Matrix of selection criteria for systematic literature review guided by PRISMA 2020 framework (Inclusion/Exclusion criteria).

The Google Scholar database search were restricted to 7 years ranging from 2018-2024. The period from 2018 onwards presents a phase of rapid urban expansion [32] necessitating effective ESIA and pronounced CG as a subject of academic inquiry. This helped to capture recent data on evolving barriers as they become more pressing with rapid urbanization and to improve integration of CG in ESIA for future urban development projects, especially in Nairobi.

The literature identification, screening and inclusion/exclusion process is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Process of selecting relevant literature using the PRISMA framework.

Research Rabit version was then used to process the references and identify citation relationships, generating visual map showing connections between papers (Figure 2), including co-authorship networks and citation trends of data for all targeted years. Microsoft Excel 2013 (Version 15.0.5589.1000) was then used to compile the data set and result for interpretation

After the above step, 24 articles were selected (listed in Table 2) to make the final sample of which all the 24 had CG Barriers, 18 of which had mentioned institutional barriers while 14 of which had mentioned policy barriers related to CG.

Figure 2: A network visualization of literature review studies by authors. The figure shows influential pathways (connectedness) and emerging or novel trends (un-connectedness) of studies by involved authors in shaping research that support “CG” OR “ESIA” AND “UDP”. The green balloons in the figure represents authors of selected studies while the blue balloons represent earlier interaction (authors) with selected authors.

Results

Figure 3a presents an analysis of the data pertaining to the prevalence of barriers to Collaborative Governance (CG) in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) within urban development projects. The data postulates a scenario where 100% of selected studies identify CG implementation barriers, while 58% and 75% of which report policy and institutional barriers that also affect CG. The data emphasizes the universality of CG implementation barriers, while simultaneously addressing the policy and institutional contexts that shape them. Inadequate legal frameworks or conflicting policy objectives (policy barriers) may lead to a lack of clear guidelines for stakeholder engagement, resulting in poor implementation of participatory processes. Similarly, insufficient resources or poor coordination among government agencies (institutional barriers) can hinder effective communication, conflict resolution, and monitoring of collaborative governance initiatives. While addressing CG implementation barriers becomes a priority, there should emphasize the need for holistic solutions such as effective strategies to address the interconnectedness of policy, institutional, and implementation challenges to foster meaningful collaborative governance in ESIA.

Figure 3b reveals a fluctuating, yet generally increasing, trend in the number of publications, with the period from 2018 to 2020 showing a relatively low and stable number of publications (3 in 2018, 1 in 2019, and 3 in 2020) indicating an initial phase of exploration and problem identification in the research area. A notable increase in publication output is observed in 2021 (7 publications) and sustained in 2023 (7 publications), with a slight dip in 2022 (4 publications). This surge suggests a growing recognition of the importance of CG in ESIA within urban development and an intensified effort to investigate the associated barriers. This increased research output may be a direct response to the persistent challenges of putting CG principles into practice.

These influential 2018 publications might have been instrumental in highlighting the universality of CG implementation barriers or in providing foundational analyses of policy and institutional obstacles.

Figure 3: a) Prevalence of CG implementation, policy, and institutional barriers in reviewed literature; b) Annual no. of publications related to barriers to “CG” OR “ESIA” AND “UDP” for the year 2018-2024.

The citation data in Figure 4a reveals a dynamic pattern of scholarly influence. The year 2018 shows a relatively high number of citations (150). This suggests that early publications in this period had a notable impact on subsequent research. Considering Figure 2b's indication of an initial phase of exploration (with 3 publications in 2018), these early studies likely played a crucial role in framing the key challenges and setting the stage for further investigation. Following 2018, there is a marked decline in citations in 2019 (60) and 2021 (67), with an increase in 2020 (274) and 2022 (83). The lower citation counts in 2019 and 2021 suggest a period where the field was still developing. Given Figure 3b's data, which shows fewer publications in 2019, the lower citations in that year could be directly related to the lower volume of research.

The significant spike in citations in 2020 (274) is particularly noteworthy. This could indicate the publication of seminal paper that had a substantial influence on the field. This highly cited study offered novel insights into the interplay between CG implementation barriers, policy constraints, and institutional weaknesses (as highlighted in Figure 4a), and proposed innovative solutions. It's worth noting that Figure 3b also shows a moderate number of publications in 2020 (3), so the high citations are not solely driven by publication volume.

The increase in citations in 2022 (83), while not as high as 2020, suggests a continued interest and engagement with the research area. This could reflect a broadening of research focus or the emergence of new sub-topics within the study of CG barriers. The data shows a moderate increase in citations in 2023 (110) that aligns with Figure 3b's trend of higher publication output in that year.

The data in Figure 4b demonstrates a clear upward trend, indicating a continuous accumulation of citations over the years. The consistently increasing cumulative citations in Figure 4b strongly emphasize the enduring relevance of the barriers identified in Figure 3a. The fact that research related to CG implementation barriers, policy constraints, and institutional weaknesses in CG continues to be cited year after year underscores the ongoing need to address these challenges in urban development project practices. The trends in publication output (Figure 3b) directly influence the cumulative citation counts (Figure 4b). The growth phase in publications from 2021 onwards contributes to the accelerated accumulation of citations, as more research provides a larger foundation for subsequent work.

Figure 4: a) No. of citations per year for Google Scholar; b) Cumulative citations p.a. for Google Scholar.

Table 2 presents the characteristics of the publications selected for the systematic literature review. It singles out how the identified barriers and proposed strategies vary across different geographic locations and types of urban development projects hence serves as a bridge between the quantitative overview provided by the Figures 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b and the qualitative depth of the individual research studies, offering a more complete and insightful synthesis of the literature on barriers to collaborative governance in ESIA within urban development projects.

Table 2: Characteristics of publications selected for systematic literature review and proposed solutions to CG barriers.

Discussions

Collaborative governance in ESIA studies

A growing number of informative studies on collaborative governance in ESIA have been undertaken globally, including in Kenya. The increasing interest in the subject is associated with the growing recognition that urban areas, especially in rapidly urbanizing regions, face significant environmental and social impacts, necessitating effective ESIA and collaborative governance, compared to other areas where urban development may be less intense or wellmanaged.

The geographical distribution of the studies included in this review reveals a diverse range of urban development contexts, spanning both Global North and Global South regions [33]. While some studies adopt a broader focus, examining developing countries or regions like Southern and Eastern Africa [34], others delve into specific urban areas, such as Nairobi, Kenya; Ngomongo [35], various locations within Kenya, and cities like Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Wuhan, China [36]. This geographical diversity underscores the global relevance of collaborative governance challenges in ESIA, as urban development projects worldwide grapple with similar issues related to stakeholder engagement, policy frameworks, and institutional coordination.

Challenges in integrating collaborative governance significantly impact ESIA implementation and project outcomes in urban areas. In Kenya, poor delivery of government projects has been attributed to inadequate stakeholder participation-reflected in limited engagement due to policy gaps, where Njue et al. indicate less than 50% of ESIA regulations explicitly mandate stakeholder involvement, leading to top-down, technocratic processes. As a result, a significant proportion of local communities perceive that their concerns are not adequately addressed, highlighting the need for stronger policy frameworks and more participatory ESIA processes in urban development.

The above challenges are mirrored in urban development projects globally, such as in European Union countries where circular economy initiatives face challenges in stakeholder engagement, as documented by Camilleri. Similarly, in urban areas like Las Palmeras, Córdoba, Spain, Delgado-Baena and Sianes have documented power asymmetries and limited accountability in collaborative governance processes. In Nairobi, Kenya, studies show that poor coordination among agencies and inadequate resources hinder effective stakeholder engagement in ESIA, as evidenced by Kathambi and Ogutu and other research. Stakeholder involvement was closely linked with project success and community satisfaction especially with projects that employed collaborative governance principles.

A large section of the ESIA research focuses on specific barriers, with policy, institutional, and CG implementation barriers attracting significant attention. Studies on the challenges of stakeholder engagement are also common in urban development contexts. For example, several studies in the review highlight how inadequate legal frameworks and poor coordination among government agencies hinder effective communication and conflict resolution–including power dynamics [37], lack of transparency [38], and limited community involvement [39]. The findings in most of the above studies reveal that the lack of effective collaborative governance in ESIA contributes to adverse environmental and social outcomes and is projected to continue without increased effort to address the identified barriers and promote more inclusive and participatory processes.

The literature review indicates that research interest has focused on the various negative consequences associated with inadequate collaborative governance in urban development projects, particularly in Nairobi, Kenya. These include studies on project delays due to legal challenges and community resistance [40], increased environmental degradation [41], and economic losses from stalled projects [42]. Similar negative consequences have been observed in other urban contexts globally [43].

It is quite clear from the available literature that most studies on ESIA in urban development have concentrated on the direct consequences of poor governance without fully considering the indirect consequences. This is evident from the trends observed in Google Scholar sources. For example, [44] notes the reputational damage affecting investor confidence and public trust, which represents a less tangible but significant negative consequence. These indirect negative consequences can sometimes outweigh the direct impacts. For instance, ineffective stakeholder engagement can lead to long-term social tensions and a breakdown of trust, making future development more difficult. In Nairobi, poor solid waste management due to institutional lapses [45] illustrates how governance failures create ongoing environmental and social burdens.

The existing legal and regulatory frameworks, such as the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) in Kenya, aim to ensure effective ESIA. However, challenges remain in their implementation. While direct negative consequences like project delays and environmental damage are often addressed, indirect negative consequences like social inequity and loss of trust are less systematically accounted for. For instance, exclusion of marginalized communities from ESIA processes [46] results in inequitable resource distribution and increased social tensions. Therefore, a comprehensive approach is needed to evaluate the full spectrum of consequences associated with collaborative governance in urban development.

Dynamics of collaborative governance and its potential in urban ESIA

Across the globe, urban centers are experiencing rapid transformations, leading to a complex interplay of various stakeholders within development projects. This dynamism shapes the way collaborative governance is both envisioned and practiced. The situation highlights the need for inclusive processes, especially within critical tools like ESIA, to navigate the diverse interests and values at play [47].

Studies emphasize the stakeholder interaction in urban settings (e.g., Delgado-Baena and Sianes). For instance, research illustrates the importance of understanding power dynamics to foster more equitable participation; the insights underscore that collaborative governance is not merely a procedural exercise but a deeply social one. Unlike more clearly bounded contexts, urban development often involves overlapping jurisdictions and fluid community boundaries, requiring governance approaches that are adaptive and context-sensitive [48].

It's clear from the literature that effective collaborative governance requires more than simply ticking boxes for “stakeholder engagement.” The review reveals a need to move beyond traditional models and embrace innovative strategies. Scholars like Colombo et al. advocate for co-production of knowledge, where local expertise is valued alongside technical assessments. This shift towards more relational and iterative forms of governance is essential for creating development outcomes that resonate with the needs and aspirations of urban dwellers. While urban development holds immense potential for progress, realizing its positive dimension’s hinges on how well governance mechanisms facilitate collaboration. For example, inclusive planning processes can be a powerful force for building social cohesion and enhancing a sense of place. It is therefore important to consider collaborative governance as a creative endeavor, one that seeks to foster synergy and shared ownership among all participants.

The evolution of governance frameworks, such as the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) in Kenya, reflects an ongoing effort to incorporate collaborative principles. However, the core challenge lies in translating these frameworks into practices that truly empower stakeholders. While formal structures provide a foundation, the ultimate success of collaborative governance depends on nurturing a culture of dialogue, mutual respect, and shared vision. For example, research by Ulibarrí et al. points to the value of building trust through transparent communication and ongoing feedback loops.

The rapid transformation of urban centers worldwide creates a dynamic field of interaction among diverse stakeholders in development projects. This dynamism shapes both the vision and practice of collaborative governance. To navigate the varied interests and values effectively, inclusive processes within ESIA is essential for effective collaboration beyond simple procedural steps; it fosters a deeper understanding of the complex social fabric-flexible to specific contexts-of urban communities. This shift towards more relational and iterative governance can lead to development outcomes that better align with the needs and aspirations of urban residents.

Policy and institutional barriers as drivers of CG in ESIA

The significant presence of policy and institutional barriers plays a crucial role in shaping the direction and emphasis on Collaborative Governance (CG) within ESIA for urban development projects. The review reveals that a substantial number of studies highlight the impact of inadequate legal frameworks and poor institutional coordination on the effectiveness of CG implementation.

Nurkaidah et al. highlight that the implementation of environmental policies faces challenges in coordination between institutions and stakeholders; while Matipano and Khumalo emphasize the need to develop guiding frameworks and build capacity that eliminates governance vacuum from the early stages of the partnerships-as a solution. Nyumba et al. also point out that in Kenya, despite ESIA, “the persistence and emergence of potential ecological impacts coupled with the likely ineffectiveness of mitigation measures... point to challenges with public participation and little oversight both in the ESIA process and implementation of the development projects”.

This focus is evident in the increasing number of publications (75% on institutional barriers and 58%on policy barriers of the selected studies) dedicated to exploring how these barriers contribute to the challenges of achieving meaningful collaboration among stakeholders. Specifically, studies investigated how conflicting policy objectives across government agencies and fragmented institutional landscapes hinder collaborative governance efforts. For instance, Ulibarrí et al. is one of the studies included in this review that highlight how the lack of clear guidelines for stakeholder engagement due to policy gaps and bureaucratic hurdles within approval processes impede the integration of CG principles.

Furthermore, the fluctuations in citation counts can reflect the evolving scholarly attention to policy and institutional barriers. For instance, researchers such as Namuma et al. provide critical analyses of how these barriers impede CG implementation and propose strategies to mitigate their effects. In addition, Sternberg and Ahearn highlight that despite well intentioned schemes promoting ESG and SIA, they “may translate poorly in situ in developing countries” due to limited relevance to daily lives and lack of governmental commitment. Indeed, Joseph and Mwangi found that despite policies to promote gender equality in community led monitoring of borehole water projects, including environmental aspects, women’s participation in community development remains inhibited by systemic barriers like policies and procedures at the county level. Lacher et al. also state that despite the advancements in land change models, “in order for the resulting model products to be useful to planners, policy makers, and conservationists, they must be focused on addressing questions of relevance to the community they intend to serve”.

The growth in publication output observed in recent years (Figure 3b) can be attributed, in part, to the ongoing need to address these persistent challenges. As the review indicates, the sustained scholarly interest, demonstrated by cumulative citation data (Figure 4b), underscores the importance of translating research findings into actionable policy changes and institutional reforms to foster more effective collaborative governance in urban development as supported by researchers such as Kathambi and Ogutu, Krueger et al., Titz and Chiotha. Indeed, Njue et al. conclude that “implementation of public projects is often hampered by rigid bureaucracies that often edge out good opportunities for public and stakeholders to contribute to sustainable decisions”. Whereas Camilleri asserts that “these unsustainable practices are triggering significant changes in our natural environment and biospheres, with catastrophic consequences for human life”.

Conclusion

The review of previous studies reveals a notable focus on collaborative governance in ESIA, yet it also uncovers persistent challenges, particularly concerning policy and institutional barriers, within urban development projects. It is essential to determine how these barriers impede the effective integration of collaborative governance and to identify strategies to overcome them. Another area that requires attention is the development of robust frameworks and mechanisms to promote more inclusive and participatory ESIA processes. This necessity arises from the observation that current practices often fall short in ensuring meaningful stakeholder engagement and equitable decision-making by focusing on autonomous consequences while ignoring relational consequences.

Although there is a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative governance in urban development, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications on the topic, the implementation of its principles faces significant obstacles. It is still difficult to fully integrate collaborative governance due to policy gaps, institutional weaknesses, and implementation challenges. The poor understanding and inadequate addressing of these barriers undermine the potential of ESIA to contribute to sustainable and equitable urban development.

It is recommended from the findings of this review that future research and practice should prioritize addressing the identified policy, institutional, and collaborative governance implementation barriers.

To achieve this, the following pertinent questions should be considered:

• What are the most effective strategies for integrating collaborative governance principles into ESIA processes for different types of urban development projects?
• How can policy frameworks and institutional arrangements be strengthened to foster more inclusive and participatory decisionmaking in urban development?

The answers to these questions will inform the development of guidelines and best practices for promoting collaborative governance in ESIA, ultimately contributing to more sustainable and equitable urban development outcomes.

References

1. Abdul Hamid M, Qian Long K (2017) An assessment of environmental impacts assessment (EIA) in Malaysia. SHS Web of Conferences, 36: 00018.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Awuah KGB (2018) Urban development and governance in Nigeria: Challenges, opportunities and policy direction. Int Dev Plan Rev 40: 27–49.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Bennedetti LV, Bennedetti LV, de Almeida Sinisgalli PA, Ferreira ML, Lemes de Oliveira F (2023) Challenges to promote sustainability in urban agriculture models: A review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20: 2110.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Bhatt RP (2023) Environmental impact assessment system and process in developing countries. Open J Ecol 13: 977–1009.
5. Bidandi F, Williams JJ (2017) The terrain of urbanisation process and policy frameworks: A critical analysis of the Kampala experience. Cogent Soc Sci 3: 1275949.

   [Google Scholar]

6. Camilleri MA (2020) European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustain Dev 28: 1804–1812.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Colombo C, Devenyns A, Manzini Ceinar I, Sendra P (2021) Co-producing a social impact assessment with affected communities: Evaluating the social sustainability of redevelopment schemes. Sustainability 13: 13381.

   [Google Scholar]

8. Cormack Z, Kurewa A (2018) The changing value of land in Northern Kenya: The case of Lake Turkana Wind Power. Crit Afr Stud 10: 89–107.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

9. de Barros AE, Morato RG, Fleming CH, Pardini R, Oliveira-Santos LG, et al. (2022) Wildfires disproportionately affected jaguars in the Pantanal. Commun Biol 5: 1028.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10. Delgado-Baena A, Sianes A (2024) Power dynamics in collaborative governance processes: A case study of a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Southern Spain. Buildings 14: 1002.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

11. Diep L, Mulligan J, Oloo MA, Guthmann L, Raido M, et al. (2022) Co-building trust in urban nature: Learning from participatory design and construction of nature-based solutions in informal settlements in East Africa. Front Sustain Cities 4: 927723.

    [Google Scholar]

12. Edâ?Dafali S, Adardour Z, Derj A, Bami A, Hussainey K, et al. (2025) A PRISMAâ?based systematic review on economic, social, and governance practices: Insights and research agenda. Bus Strateg Environ 34: 1896–1916.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

13. Engebø A, Lædre O, Young B, Larssen PF, Lohne J, et al. (2020) Collaborative project delivery methods: A scoping review. J Civ Eng Manag 26: 278–303.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

14. Ewim DR, Orikpete OF, Scott TO, Onyebuchi CN, Onukogu AO, et al. (2023) Survey of wastewater issues due to oil spills and pollution in the Niger Delta Area of Nigeria: A secondary data analysis. Bull Natl Res Cent

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

15. Horn P (2021) Enabling participatory planning to be scaled in exclusionary urban political environments: Lessons from the Mukuru special planning area in Nairobi. Environ Urban 33: 519–538.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

16. Ichsan Kabullah M, Sudarmoko S, Koeswara H, Rahman F, Azwar A (2021) Dysfunction of collaborative governance in the handling Policy of COVID-19 at Jambi Province. J Sosial Hum 4: 99.
17. IGPCC (2023) Climate Change 2022–Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    [Google Scholar]

18. Joseph K, Mwangi J (2022) Influence of gender equality in the management committee on community-led monitoring of borehole water projects. Afr J Empir Res 3: 115–127.

    [Google Scholar]

19. Kalantari Z, Ferreira CS, Page J, Goldenberg R, Olsson J, et al. (2019) Meeting sustainable development challenges in growing cities: Coupled social-ecological systems modeling of land use and water changes. J Environ Manage 245: 471–480.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

20. Kariuki DW, Kuria JM (2021) Coal-key energy resource for the future in Kenya? A Review. Int J Adv Res 3: 72–85.
21. Kathambi B, Ogutu FA (2021) Effects of institutional framework lapses in solid waste management; Case of Ngomongo, Nairobi, Kenya.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

22. Kemunto M, Kamau G (2021) Willingness to pay for Nairobi National Park: An application of discrete choice experiment. J Dev Agric Econ 13: 27–33.

    [Google Scholar]

23. Kliskey AA, Williams P, Trammell EJ, Cronan D, Griffith D, et al. (2023) Building trust, building futures: Knowledge co-production as relationship, design, and process in transdisciplinary science. Front Environ Sci 11: 1007105.

    [Google Scholar]

24. Krueger EH, Constantino SM, Centeno MA, Elmqvist T, Weber EU, et al. (2022) Governing sustainable transformations of urban social-ecological-technological systems. NPJ Urban Sustain 2: 10.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

25. Lacher I, Fergus C, McShea WJ, Plisinski J, Morreale L, et al. (2023) Modeling alternative future scenarios for direct application in land use and conservation planning. Conserv Sci Pract 5: e12940.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

26. Li X, Dai J, Zhu X, He J, Li J, et al. (2022) What is the mechanism of government green development behavior considering multi-agent interaction? A meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19: 8263.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

27. Lin H, Xia L (2021) Research on cooperative protection mechanism of ecological environment. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 772: 012087.

    [Google Scholar]

28. Matipano G, Khumalo R (2021) Enhanced shared governance improves the collaborative management of protected areas in Zimbabwe. East Afr J Environ Nat Resour 3: 91–107.
29. Miller R, Marsh H, Benham C, Hamann M (2020) Stakeholder engagement in the governance of marine migratory species: Barriers and building blocks. Endanger Species Res 43: 1–19.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

30. Mkutu K, Mkutu T, Marani M, Ekitela AL (2019) New oil developments in a remote area: Environmental justice and participation in Turkana, Kenya. J Environ Dev 28: 223–252.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

31. Mottee LK, Arts J, Vanclay F, Miller F, Howitt R (2020) Reflecting on how social impacts are considered in transport infrastructure project planning: Looking beyond the claimed success of Sydney’s South West rail link. Urban Policy Res 38: 185–198.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

32. Mundia CN (2017) Nairobi metropolitan area. In Y. Murayama, C. Kamusoko, A. Yamashita, and R. C. Estoque (Eds.), Urban development in Asia and Africa (pp. 293–317). Springer Singapore.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

33. Njue NG, Mulwa AS, Kyalo DN, Mbugua JM (2021) Implementation, stakeholder’s participation and sustainability of public projects in Kenya: A Conceptual Framework. J Sustain Dev 14: 100.

    [Google Scholar]

34. Nurkaidah, Anas A, Baharuddin T (2024) Implementation of environmental policies on the development of a new capital city in Indonesia. Cogent Soc Sci 10: 2297764.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

35. Nyumba TO, Sang CC, Olago DO, Marchant R, Waruingi L, et al. (2021) Assessing the ecological impacts of transportation infrastructure development: A reconnaissance study of the standard gauge railway in Kenya. Plos One 16: e0246248.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

36. Onkangi NR, Nyakondo NS, Mwangi P, Ondari L, Wachira B (2018) Environmental management systems in construction projects in Kenya: Barriers, drivers, adoption levels. Rwanda J Eng Sci Technol Environ 1.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

37. Parsons R, Everingham JA, Kemp D (2019) Developing social impact assessment guidelines in a pre-existing policy context. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 37: 114–123.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

38. Pauna T, Lehtinen J, Kujala J, Aaltonen K (2023) The role of governmental stakeholder engagement in the sustainability of industrial engineering projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 16: 77–99.

    [Google Scholar]

39. Pieterse E, Parnell S, Haysom G (2018) African dreams: Locating urban infrastructure in the 2030 sustainable developmental agenda. Area Dev Policy 3: 149–169.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

40. Riggs RA, Langston JD, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Lim HS, et al. (2018) Governance challenges in an Eastern Indonesian forest landscape. Sustainability 10: 169.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

41. Sengupta U, Sengupta U (2022) SDG-11 and smart cities: Contradictions and overlaps between social and environmental justice research agendas. Front Sociol 7: 995603.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

42. Singh GG, Lerner J, Clarke Murray C, Wong J, Mach M, et al. (2019) Response to critique of “The insignificance of thresholds in environmental impact assessment: An illustrative case study in Canada”. Environ Manage 64: 133–137.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

43. Titz A, Chiotha SS (2019) Pathways for sustainable and inclusive cities in Southern and Eastern Africa through urban green infrastructure? Sustainability 11: 2729.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

44. Ulibarri N, Cain B, Ajami N (2017) a framework for building efficient environmental permitting processes. Sustainability 9: 180.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

45. Ulibarri N, Imperial MT, Siddiki S, Henderson H (2023) Drivers and dynamics of collaborative governance in environmental management. Environ Manage 71: 495–504.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

46. Valerio AS (2024) Balancing Urban development and environmental sustainability: A case study of Zamboanga city, Philippines. Cogniz J Multidiscip Stud 4: 441–455.

    [Google Scholar]

47. Xavier R, Komendantova N, Jarbandhan V, Nel D (2017) Participatory governance in the transformation of the South African energy sector: Critical success factors for environmental leadership. J Clean Prod 154: 621–632.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

48. Yakubu O (2018) Delivering environmental justice through environmental impact assessment in the United States: The challenge of public participation. Challenges 9: 9.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]