Community satisfaction with essential and vital social services and decision-making processes is an indirect measure of social cohesion as one of the key factors in social capital. Social capital can be in the form of fundamental, cognitive and relational structures. Cognitive capital refers to the social networks that human beigs rely
upon for facilitating the flow and exchange of information. For instance, social capital can facilitate an individual’s access to knowledge for effective/meaningfull communication about employment, political support, adaptability and other such opportunities.
At the same time, such community and social networks help to integrate individuals into the community which fosters an exchange of information and the community’s social relations as an imperative in management and response to common resources or vulnerabilities. The common way to measure social cohesion is to use involvement in collective community activities as a proxy for social coherence (?)
As illustrated by one of the participants from Mombasa, there is a disconnect between the planning institutions and the local communities’ perceptions when it comes to the approval of development along the coastline. The participant (see ?) insisted that planning authorities need to enforce proper development control to protect coastal areas from high-rise building and similar developments that are too close to the ocean,
“This is not a rocket science. Mombasa is an island and for those in
planning and approval of high-rise buildings should know in long run putting more weight on the island is going to sink it. Before independence and the colonial era, the British knew this and never approved any buildings more than three storeys high. The planning laws can be checked in land/ planning registry records.”
This demonstrates possibilities of participants negative perceptions of government supply of social services and the role of planning in ensuring the sustainability of the islands and the protection of people’s enterprise and infrastructures. Besides community vulnerability, a lack of public sector preparedness in the developing world has resulted in ongoing cumulative damages in urban coastal environments. Communities with a significant proportion of individuals who participate in community organisation, and cultural events for instance, are seen as better placed to deal with socio-economic changes and crises, including natural hazards and climate change impacts. As discussed previously (see Table 5.1), community/social challenges have led to the high levels of apathy to climate change impacts. This is coupled with a lack of information on some of these threats which in turn hinders/undermines collective adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Bureaucracy and lack of government support
In a broad perspective, the Kenyan constitution has advocated for the inclusion of local communities in the protection and management of resources within their areas in particular through devolution of governance to the county level. To an extent, this provision has increased the participation of communities in conservation as well as planning projects even though this is unfolding amidst multiple challenges such as budgets and capacity constraints.
So far the county governments have not developed systematic strategies towards the inclusion of communities in adaptation and mitigation measures in cases where their unity and livelihood is threatened. This gap leaves such communities exposed to extreme events and also left to recover from their misfortunes on their own. The participants therefore, felt that their participation in adaptation and mitigation strategies in tandem with the government officers on the ground would offer a robust solution out of the quagmire they find themselves in during the increasing extreme conditions that happen in the islands.
To reduce the centralized authority and deliver services equitably to all, the Kenyan government embarked on the current constitutional dispensation which allows for delivery of services to be brought closer to the residents, through the county governments. According to the communities in Mombasa and Lamu Island, the feeling that central government has not been taking their regional issues seriously still stands. They believe that they are vulnerable to climate extremes with Mombasa Island bearing the brunt of flooding during the rainy season and succeeding drought during the parched seasons while Lamu grapples with increased scale of tides.
They perceived themselves as already disadvantaged and disillusioned with the willingness of the central government in coming to their aid, especially now that the advancing oceans threat is real to them. The participants also noted that strategies that would allow for either climate specific adaptation strategies in the country are still in preparatory phase. However, there is a reasonable chance that when these systems are streamlined, coastal communities will demand more comprehensive measures to protect themselves and their properties from climate-related impacts. SLR vulnerability assessment studies to date have primarily focused on understanding and responding to the physical phenomena of disasters. Such a focus can be limiting, particularly because of the uncertainty of climate-change projections. Furthermore, the nature and extent of
climate-induced impacts within a community are equally influenced, among others, by social and political contexts.
Active and strategic political interactions are essential to delivering some of the adaptive and mitigative strategies. In cases where the administrative will or capacity is weak, as in most developing countries that suffer the syndrome of not rewarding opponents (which Mombasa and Lamu are deemed to be) the vulnerability realities can be dire. The analysis of the spatial assessment indicated at most a total population of 1.9 million people in Mombasa Island and a further 57,300 people on Lamu will be severely impacted by 2060 and more so by 2090. Such a population within the danger zone was viewed as a crucial point for the respective county governments to expedite adaptation strategies. The bureaucratic stalling and the related lack of public support were emphasized by one of the participants who said
“The people at the coast, have always been marginalized; we do not even
have our pieces of land, the relevant authorities will not save us should the island be under threat from sea level changes.”
The challenges faced by the government in providing services to the communities actually precede the growing need to offer better safety and adaptation strategies and includes financial constraints as well as the normalcy bias demonstrated by local planning agencies. Participants did not have kind words for the departments in charge of the delivery of services as well as the protection of coastal people and their properties. Table 5.2 gives a summary of participants’ perception of governance and other challenges within their respective counties,