Sustainability 16 08700 v2

sustainability
Review
Empowering Communities to Act for a Change: A Review of the
Community Empowerment Programs towards Sustainability
and Resilience
Diana Dushkova * and Olga Ivlieva
Department of Conservation Biology & Social-Ecological Systems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental
Research—UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
* Correspondence: diana.dushkova@ufz.de
Abstract: At the global level, significant efforts have been made to address societal challenges and
improve the lives of people and restore the planet’s ecosystems through sustainability and resilience
programs. These programs, however, tend to be driven by governments, private sectors, and financial
institutions, and therefore often lack a process of empowerment to ensure that the local communities
can participate actively in co-designing and implementing these programs. More knowledge is
needed on how to develop such programs and how the process of empowerment can be organized
so that it supports in the long run sustainability transformation. Against this background, the
paper explores the role of community empowerment programs as a critical tool for sustainability
management strategies and practices. A semi-systematic review of 21 community empowerment
programs for sustainability and resilience is conducted. The analysis reveals that the programs
mostly aimed to address challenges such as the lack of education and capacity, limited access to basic
services and resources, and poor governance and management. The programs initiators involve a
diverse set of actors, especially through established partnerships and networks. Most of the programs
address the specific needs of vulnerable or marginalized groups or communities. The structure of the
programs typically follows a phased methodological approach, beginning with awareness-raising and
problem identification, followed by capacity building that allows for making decisions collaboratively
Citation: Dushkova, D.; Ivlieva, O. and for co-creating innovative solutions based on local knowledge and values. Also, monitoring and
Empowering Communities to Act for evaluation of transformative impact are mentioned as important structural elements. Specifically, the
a Change: A Review of the
analysis highlights four main focus areas of empowerment: (1) capacity building, (2) self-reliance,
Community Empowerment Programs
control, ownership, responsibility, and independence, (3) participation, engagement, and collective
towards Sustainability and Resilience.
action, and (4) integration of local knowledge and values. However, there is no one-size-fits-all
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8700. https://
approach to such programs. Instead, successful empowerment programs towards sustainability
doi.org/10.3390/su16198700
depend on a deep understanding of local contexts and the ability to tailor strategies to meet specific
Academic Editors: Ming-Tsang Lu, community needs. The review also identified knowledge gaps that require further investigation to
Jung-Fa Tsai, Yi-Chung Hu and
enhance the effectiveness of empowerment programs for both people and nature.
Ming-Hua Lin
Received: 2 September 2024 Keywords: sustainability; sustainability transformation; resilience; empowerment; community
Revised: 28 September 2024 empowerment programs
Accepted: 6 October 2024
Published: 9 October 2024
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
There is a growing recognition that a fundamental transformation toward sustainabil-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ity is essential for mitigating climate change, achieving sustainable development goals, and
This article is an open access article building a more environmentally conscious and resilient future [1–3]. The approaches to
distributed under the terms and transformations towards sustainability have become a central role in both global sustain-
conditions of the Creative Commons ability research and policy discussions in the last decades, e.g., being a key reference for
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and the various global
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ sustainability research platforms (e.g., the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
4.0/). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198700 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8700 2 of 25
Change (IPCC), Future Earth, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN), etc.). It is important to note that as an approach, sustainability
transformation has also experienced evolution where its primary focus on describing prob-
lems and identifying solutions has been shifted to getting a better and shared understanding
of potential sustainability pathways [1,3–5]. The latter underlines the value of social innova-
tions, capacity building, learning, and knowledge co-production as well as new narratives
for sustainability transformations that are strongly linked to community engagement.
Recently, engaging communities in these sustainability transformation processes has
been acknowledged as essential. Various studies have highlighted that communities play
a significant role in this transformation, e.g., through changing their attitudes, values,
and behaviors as well as adopting more sustainable ways of living, technologies, and
consumption [6–9]. Moreover, it was demonstrated that due to their local knowledge and
experiences, local communities had the capacity to solve the problems related to climate
mitigation and achievement of the sustainability goals [10–13].
On a global scale, a great effort has been made to address the current societal chal-
lenges and ensure that the benefits are provided for both people and nature. In particular,
a variety of sustainability and resilience programs worldwide have been developed and
implemented. Among them are the UN Program on the World’s 17-point Plan for Achiev-
ing the SDGs by 2030 [14], the World Bank’s Global Program on Sustainability for Making
Nature Count for People and Planet [15], IPBES programs and activities [16], and the UN
Environment Program (UNEP) focusing on climate, nature, pollution, and sustainable de-
velopment [17]. Also, the European Green Deal [18] provides a set of EC policy initiatives
with the overarching aim of making Europe climate-neutral by 2050 based on measures
related to promoting the efficient use of resources, restoring biodiversity, and decreasing
environmental pollution. Additionally, the World Sustainability Organization [19] has
initiated several programs to protect critical habitats and endangered species globally by
utilizing sustainability certifications, conservation and awareness projects, etc. Moreover,
the European Environmental Agency (EEA) in its report [20] emphasized the need for
improving participatory processes where the citizens can contribute collectively to creating
resilient futures. Still, these sustainability programs, which are mostly based on scientific
evidence and often aimed at better-informed decisions, have been mainly made by govern-
ments, private sectors, and financial institutions. However, civil society/local communities
remain solely recipients or—in best cases—passive beneficiaries of those sustainability
programs. The approaches used there hardly (if at all) incorporate the concept of empower-
ment; however, the communities cannot be seen solely as passive beneficiaries or users of
nature’s benefits/ecosystem services, as they also have the capacity to influence local sus-
tainability decision-making [10,12,13]. Moreover, several studies [11,21–25] have confirmed
that empowered stakeholders and leaders can actively decide, plan, protect, manage, or
restore ecosystems, thereby making meaningful contributions to driving sustainability
changes, enhancing resilience, and fostering socio-economic development. This underlines
the need for a better understanding of how to enable community empowerment to support
and drive sustainability transformation. In particular, Vignola et al. [25] discussed the roles
of different stakeholders in designing and implementing strategies for ecosystem-based
adaptation as part of their local resource planning. They emphasized the value of equi-
table partnerships with a variety of stakeholders (especially, public–private ones), and
highlighted the role of NGOs in strengthening Indigenous populations in protecting their
rights and values in the design of adaptation plans. Their research along with the other
studies [22,24] also demonstrated the benefits of integrating local knowledge of civil society
in problem identification, strategy formulation, selection of policy options, monitoring,
and evaluation. As stated by Gonzalez-Porras et al. [21], empowered individual stake-
holders play “. . . a proactive role in innovation processes, acting as stimulators, initiators,
brokers/mediators, concept refiners” and support “the generation and implementation
of. . . low-energy housing”, “making sustainable consumption choices” [21], p. 217.
For this purpose, the paper applied a semi-systematic review (narrative review ap-
proach) to synthesize the existing literature on community empowerment for transfor-
mations towards sustainability and resilience. This study was done within the Horizon
Europe project EmpowerUs (Grant No. 101059957) aiming to support the resilience of local
communities in becoming more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable.
At the core of the project lies the idea of the synergetic approach that is aimed to align
scientific evidence with community knowledge and participation. In doing so, we aimed
to explore how to organize and implement the process of empowering communities for
sustainability-related actions, decision-making, and participation. Moreover, it was im-
portant to identify what makes such programs successful in achieving sustainability and
resilience, how to conceptually develop and practically implement them, as well as what is
the value of community empowerment for a sustainability transition.
In scientific and grey literature, empowerment is considered both a process and an out-
come that involves: (a) individual/psychological empowerment; (b) development of small
mutual groups; (c) community organizations; (d) building partnerships; and (e) undertak-
ing social and political action [26–32]. In the EmpowerUs project, empowerment is defined
as the process in which actors/stakeholders gain power [33] and/or decision-making
capacity [26,27] to mobilize resources and institutions for achieving certain sustainability
goals. In this regard, three dimensions of empowerment have been used: (1) access to
resources and institutions; (2) strategies to mobilize them; and (3) the willingness to do so.
Nevertheless, there is no systematic review or understanding of how an empowerment
program can be developed and how to successfully implement it to ensure the input
for sustainability.
This paper aimed to answer the following overarching research question: How can
empowerment programs support communities in their transition processes toward sus-
tainability and resilience? Research sub-questions aiding our analysis included: (a) What
are the main objectives of those programs (incl. dimensions of sustainability and main
challenges addressed)? (b) Who has initiated the programs? (c) What key targeted groups
were addressed? (d) What are the main structural elements and actions of the programs?
(e) What particular types of empowerment and their outcomes were demonstrated there?
(f) What main approaches were used for the monitoring and evaluation of these programs?
Against this background, our review has considered seven main characteristics: (1) di-
mensions of sustainability which the program referred to; (2) initiators of the program,
(3) target stakeholders or community groups that are supposed to be empowered, (4) time-
frame, (5) structural elements of the program (main actions and approaches used), (6) types
and outcomes of empowerment achieved; (7) expected sustainability-related output and
indicators to evaluate it. The results obtained allowed us to identify several knowledge
gaps in making such empowerment programs more successful and beneficial for both
people and nature.
2. Materials and Methods

In this study, a semi-systematic review (narrative review approach) was applied to
synthesize the existing literature on community empowerment for transformations towards
sustainability and resilience. In comparison to the systematic review, a semi-systematic
approach (also called targeted or focused literature review) allowed for not only focus on
high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles on the research subject, but also for locating
relevant grey literature (non-peer-reviewed sources such as project materials, policy notes,
project reports, websites, etc.) [34]. We decided to integrate these non-peer-reviewed
sources because we realized an insufficient number of relevant scientific publications. Our
main research object—empowerment programs towards sustainability and resilience—in
many cases appeared in the form of project reports, policy briefs, or project materials.
This semi-systematic literature review combined systematic elements presented in the
methodological protocol (Figure 1) with a more flexible narrative approach, allowing for a
deeper qualitative analysis and interpretation of data. This enabled a more iterative process
Creating new organizational forms to support and represent community’s
needs (committees, active groups)
Future vision formulation (plans, strategies)
Support in upscaling of solutions
Enhancing data collection that led to a broader scope of included studies and a better understanding of the current
Stimulating women’s participation in decision
state-of-the-art making
and trends in a research field. Moreover, it provided a possibility to map
Introduction of sustainable agricultural practices
theoretical approaches and identify knowledge gaps within the selected literature [34].
Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The review
review algorithm
algorithm with
with the
the steps
steps and
and processes
processes used
used in
in this
this study.
study.
order to analyze
In particular, and synthesize
it explored the findingsempowerment
how the community from a semi-systematic
programs review
have been we
used a thematic/content
progressing over time and analysis
how they thathave
helped beento identify,
developed assess,
within and reportresearch
various on the certain
tradi-
criteria provided
tions/domains and in implementation
Table 1 and laterpractices.
textually The interpret
review thealso
findings
aimed(following
to identify,[34,35]).
under-
The selected
stand, and then type of literature
reflect on the used analysis allowedofus
definitions to detect themes/thematic
community empowerment and scopes,
empow-and
erment towards(such
main elements sustainability
as program andstructure,
resiliencenumber
in orderoftorequired
reveal their mainmonitoring
actions, characteristics,
and
approaches, and targetetc.)
evaluation approach, stakeholders. Moreover,
as well as identify theourkeyreview intended
requirements toto betterthe
ensure understand
program
the theoreticalcomprehensive
is successful, background and andpractical
achieving implications of such
its sustainability programs
vision. to the
Finally, develop the
obtained
framework for community empowerment programs within the
results enabled us to define the knowledge gaps in the existing literature that need further EmpowerUs project. In
the process
examination. of covering a broad range of empowerment within those programs and dif-
ferent types of approaches applied, our review has developed a certain research strategy
to enable readers to follow the logic/algorithm of the research process and to access the
3. Results
main arguments
3.1. Overview forPrograms
of the including the particular
(Geographical program
Context, in the review.
Timeframe, The review
Main Challenges included
Addressed,
the following steps and processes presented
Key Objectives, and Dimensions of Sustainability Considered) in Figure 1. Step 1 referred to data gathering.
Scientific papers and grey literature identified through Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and
GoogleTheScholar
reviewed empowerment
platforms programs
were included (Table
in the S1, Annex)
scope vary in their
of the screening geographical
process, with no
geographical and timely limitations, through the search that used the following challenges
context, timeframe, main objectives, dimensions of sustainability, and main keywords:
addressed. However,
community, empowerment, there are some common
sustainability, features/similarities
resilience, program (asthat contributed
a result, to the
38 programs
development
were found in of a certain
total). During typology.
the second step, the data obtained were screened and cleaned.
In regard to the geographical
For this purpose, title and abstract reading context were
of theperformed
implementation,
using the some programs
following (N = 3)
navigating
were designed for the entire geographic regions, such as
questions: (a) Does it relate to/provide/analyze any community empowerment program? the Mediterranean, European
rural
(b) areas,
Is this and theaiming
program Asia-Pacific region.
to achieve However, most
sustainability programs were
and resilience? country-specific
(c) Does it match the
definition of empowerment used in the project? (consequently, 28 programs communities,
(Figure 2). The largest number of programs were related to Indonesian were selected
probably
for due to screening).
the full-text their diversity Stepwithin
3 wastheaimed
country, e.g., programs
at data collectionsupporting certain com-
when all available full
munities
texts (incl.inrelated
different partsreports,
papers, and islands of Indonesia
deliverables, (N = downloaded
etc.) were 9). There were andalso
addedprograms
to the
operating
data in the European
and knowledge base (inregion
total,(N21= programs
3), with theremained
main focus forontherural
datacommunities.
analysis). Step The
4
same number of programs (N = 3) were targeted at supporting
(data analysis) contained full-text reading and filtering data (i.e., planned programs were communities in African
excluded from the review). Step 5 is related to data mapping, with the following structuring
of the findings using the additional criteria provided in Table 1. Finally, Step 6 was devoted
to synthesizing and interpreting the results as well as their discussion based on the findings
from the existing publications.
Table 1. The most common actions mentioned in the reviewed empowerment programs.
Examples of the Actions

Frequency of Appearance among the Programs
within the Programs’ Structure
Mobilizing the forces of the target group
Capacity building
Appeared in all programs
Local knowledge exchange
Enhancing community interaction
Assisting by the implementation
Mentioned in more than half
Providing basic services (food, childcare, health)
of the programs
Monitoring and Evaluation
Creation or upgrading of built or transport infrastructure
Creating new organizational forms to support and represent community’s
needs (committees, active groups)
Future vision formulation (plans, strategies) Mentioned by several programs
Support in upscaling of solutions
Enhancing data collection
Stimulating women’s participation in decision making
Introduction of sustainable agricultural practices
In order to analyze and synthesize the findings from a semi-systematic review we

used a thematic/content analysis that helped to identify, assess, and report on the certain
criteria provided in Table 1 and later textually interpret the findings (following [34,35]).
The selected type of literature analysis allowed us to detect themes/thematic scopes,
and main elements (such as program structure, number of required actions, monitoring
and evaluation approach, etc.) as well as identify the key requirements to ensure the
program is successful, comprehensive and achieving its sustainability vision. Finally, the
obtained results enabled us to define the knowledge gaps in the existing literature that
need further examination.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of the Programs (Geographical Context, Timeframe, Main Challenges Addressed,
Key Objectives, and Dimensions of Sustainability Considered)
The reviewed empowerment programs (Table S1, Annex) vary in their geographical
context, timeframe, main objectives, dimensions of sustainability, and main challenges
addressed. However, there are some common features/similarities that contributed to the
development of a certain typology.
In regard to the geographical context of the implementation, some programs (N = 3)
were designed for the entire geographic regions, such as the Mediterranean, European
rural areas, and the Asia-Pacific region. However, most programs were country-specific
(Figure 2). The largest number of programs were related to Indonesian communities, proba-
bly due to their diversity within the country, e.g., programs supporting certain communities
in different parts and islands of Indonesia (N = 9). There were also programs operating in
the European region (N = 3), with the main focus on rural communities. The same number
of programs (N = 3) were targeted at supporting communities in African countries (e.g.,
Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal). The American continents were represented by the programs
from Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Overall, besides the differences in geograph-
ical context, the majority of the programs were aimed at empowering communities in
rural areas. In most cases, the time frame is related to the long-term perspective, varying
from 3 to 10 years. Largely, this is due to the following reasons: (a) the complexity of
the program’s objectives; and (b) the issue that sustainability goals and empowerment
processes are naturally rooted in long-term ambition.
by the programs from Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Overall, besides the differ-
ences in geographical context, the majority of the programs were aimed at empowering
communities in rural areas. In most cases, the time frame is related to the long-term per-
spective, varying from 3 to 10 years. Largely, this is due to the following reasons: (a) the
complexity of the program’s objectives; and (b) the issue that sustainability goals and em-
powerment processes are naturally rooted in long-term ambition.
Figure2.2.Geographical
Figure Geographicalcontext
contextof
ofthe
thecommunity
communityempowerment
empowermentprograms
programsincluded
includedininthe
thereview.
review.
Themain
The mainchallenges
challenges addressed
addressed by programs
by the the programs can becan be categorized
categorized into sevenintogroups
seven
groups (areas of challenges) (Figure 3). It was revealed that the largest
(areas of challenges) (Figure 3). It was revealed that the largest group is represented by the group is repre-
sented
lack by the lackand
of education of education
capacity (theand total
capacity
number(the total number ofchallenges
of mentioned mentionedischallenges
32). In thisis
32). In this
category, thecategory, the most frequently
most frequently appeared challenges
appeared challenges include theinclude
lack ofthe lack of capacity
personal personal
capacity
for for life maintenance
life maintenance (N = 10) and (Nthe= low
10) level
and the low level of environmental
of environmental education/awareness educa-
tion/awareness
(N = 5). The programs,(N = 5). however,
The programs,often however,
addressedoften addressed
several problems several problems
of financial of fi-
literacy,
insufficient
nancial literacy, professional
insufficient skills, and a lackskills,
professional of awareness
and a lackabout sustainability
of awareness projects or
about sustainabil-
local resources.
ity projects The second
or local resources. biggest area of challenges
The second biggest arearelates to the lack
of challenges of access
relates to thetolack
basicof
services
access to(health, education,
basic services infrastructure).
(health, Here such challenges
education, infrastructure). as a lack
Here such of basicashealth
challenges a lack
and foodhealth
of basic services
and (Nfood
= 8),services
limited (Naccess
= 8),tolimited
information
access (N = 6), and low
to information (Ninfrastructure
= 6), and low
quality (N = 5) were
infrastructure quality most(N frequently mentioned
= 5) were most among
frequently all reviewed
mentioned programs.
among The group
all reviewed pro-
of poor governance
grams. The group of andpoormanagement
governance hasand
a similarly
managementhigh number of mentioned
has a similarly high challenges
number of
(25) with an challenges
mentioned emphasis on (25)thewith
lackanof emphasis
community onparticipation in sustainability
the lack of community measures
participation in
(N = 9), the lack of leadership and the weak government/management
sustainability measures (N = 9), the lack of leadership and the weak government/manage- (N = 5), and the lack
of networking
ment (N = 5), among
and thedifferent
lack of stakeholders
networking among (N = 4).different
Other relatively big groups/areas
stakeholders (N = 4). Other of
challenges
relatively are big climate changeof
groups/areas effects and environmental
challenges degradation
are climate change effectswhere
and environmental
environmental
degradation
degradation was where of special
environmentalfocus bydegradation
several programs was ofalong
specialwith coastal
focus erosion,
by several floods,
programs
droughts, water quality, insecurity, etc. Unemployment, poverty,
along with coastal erosion, floods, droughts, water quality, insecurity, etc. Unemploy- and income insecurity
were
ment,also considered
poverty, the keyinsecurity
and income target challenges
were also (the total number
considered of mentioned
the key challenges
target challenges (the
istotal
17) number
along with the food insecurity and unsustainable agricultural
of mentioned challenges is 17) along with the food insecurity and unsustain-practices that have
caused loss of soil
able agricultural fertilitythat
practices andhave
food-related
caused loss insecurity (14). Finally,
of soil fertility social and
and food-related gender
insecurity
inequality-related challenges were also encountered (10) with
(14). Finally, social and gender inequality-related challenges were also encountered a particular emphasis on (10)
the
lack
withofa gender-responsive
particular emphasis policies
on theand
lackactions (N = 4) as well aspolicies
of gender-responsive exclusion,
anddiscrimination,
actions (N = 4)
and inequalities (N = 2).
as well as exclusion, discrimination, and inequalities (N = 2).
In most cases, the key objectives of those programs were to enable people to take
initiative, make decisions for themselves, and solve complex problems. Many programs
were aimed at empowering communities through enhancing their capacity (since it was
the most frequently appeared area of challenge) to ensure food security, improve nutrition,
and boost household incomes. Central to these objectives was the emphasis on sustainable
development achieved by involving local populations in decision-making processes and
fostering collaboration among the different stakeholders. The programs also focused on
empowering communities through harnessing their inherent strengths to build resilience
and self-sufficiency through initiatives that improve education and health. This included
providing access to educational resources, particularly in environmental sustainability
and resource management, and offering practical support in local languages to enhance
community well-being. Economic empowerment is another key focus, with the efforts
directed at providing guidance, training, and capacity-building in financial and human
management, along with infrastructure support to enhance community prosperity. The

programs also emphasized the importance of community participation, ownership, and
collective action, aiming to increase control over local resources and promote social and
political change. Preserving culture and traditional knowledge along with strengthening
independence have been a part of many programs as well. This is especially relevant for
remote communities, where traditional knowledge and local wisdom are leveraged to
improve quality of life and transform food systems towards sustainability. Additionally,
the programs advocated for gender-responsive policies in order to ensure that the benefits
of community development are equitably distributed and that women are represented in
decision-making processes. Finally, the programs sought to improve community cohesion,
promote self-governance, and encourage resident interactions through various activities.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
They supported different types of community associations, mostly focusing on quality7 of
of life
26
in rural communities and emphasizing environmental protection and ecological tourism.
Figure 3. Main identified areas of challenges and particular challenges addressed by the programs
Figure 3. Main identified areas of challenges and particular challenges addressed by the programs (a
(a number by the area of challenge shows the total amount of mentions, N in the boxes stands for
number by the area of challenge shows the total amount of mentions, N in the boxes stands for the
the number of programs that mentioned the particular challenge).
number of programs that mentioned the particular challenge).
In most
Due cases,
to the the key of
complexity objectives of thoseprograms,
most reviewed programsthey were to enable
tended people
to focus to three
on all take
initiative, make decisions for themselves, and solve complex problems.
aspects of sustainability (12 of 21 programs). Other programs were primarily related to twoMany programs
were aimed
aspects at empowering
of sustainability, communities
in particular, through
the most enhancing
commonly theircombination
appeared capacity (sincewasitsocial
was
the most frequently appeared area of challenge) to ensure food security,
and economic sustainability (N = 7), often emphasizing economic or social goals while improve nutri-
tion, and boost
overlooking household incomes.
environmental concerns. Central
These to these objectives
empowerment was therelated
programs emphasis on sus-
to economic
tainable
and socialdevelopment
sustainabilityachieved by involving
were often local populations
aimed at improving financialin decision-making
well-being pro-
by enhancing
cesses and
financial fostering
skills, collaboration
knowledge, among the
and confidence, differentfor
particularly stakeholders.
marginalized The programssocial
or neglected also
focused on empowering communities through harnessing their inherent
groups, but also at improving community health and quality of life. Key competencies such strengths to
build resilience and self-sufficiency through initiatives that improve education
as self-control, decision-making, social skills, and self-governance have been frequently and health.
This included
highlighted in providing accessSocial
these programs. to educational
empowerment resources,
in thatparticularly
case was often in environmental
portrayed as a
sustainability and resource
process of building autonomy,management, and offering
self-confidence, and thepractical supportfor
skills necessary in local languages
individuals and
to enhance community
communities well-being.
to work towards Economic
a better future.empowerment
These programs is another
operated keyatfocus, with
various the
levels,
efforts directed at providing
from empowering individualsguidance,
to engagetraining, and capacity-building
in participatory in financial
processes to promoting and
inclusive
human management,
community planningalong with infrastructure
and governance. support
In contrast, onlytoa enhance communityprograms
few empowerment prosper-
ity. The programs also emphasized the importance of community
were focused on environmental and social sustainability (N = 2). These initiatives participation, owner-
often
ship, andfood
targeted collective action,
security, aimingfarming,
sustainable to increase control
natural over local
resource resourcesflood
management, and resilience,
promote
social and political change. Preserving culture and traditional knowledge along with
strengthening independence have been a part of many programs as well. This is especially
relevant for remote communities, where traditional knowledge and local wisdom are lev-
eraged to improve quality of life and transform food systems towards sustainability. Ad-
ditionally, the programs advocated for gender-responsive policies in order to ensure that
disaster risk reduction, and renewable energy. They were designed to equip individuals and
communities with the tools and resources needed to improve their lives in the long term,
particularly through participation in environmentally-focused decisions. Key objectives
of these programs included raising environmental awareness, promoting environmental
literacy, providing knowledge support, offering environmental education, and developing
technical innovations such as early warning systems for disaster risk reduction and support
for renewable energy systems.
3.2. Main Actors of the Programs: Initiators and Target Groups

The empowerment programs were initiated by a diverse set of actors, including NGOs,
international organizations and funds, corporate entities, governments, as well as research
and educational institutions. In most cases, the program had two or more initiators (e.g., one
leading initiator such as a government or an international organization(-s) in partnership
with the local one) whereas programs with one initiator are rare. Key initiators include:
• Government bodies (public authorities and decision-makers): National, regional, and
local governments are the key initiators in most programs (N = 10). Among the exam-
ples are the Indigenous community empowerment program on the sustainability of the
local food crops in West Papua (Indonesia), the Promoting Economic Empowerment
Through Effective Implementation and Linking Social Capital in Urban Agriculture
Programs (Malaysia), the Empowering Rural Communities through Smart Technology
(UK) with the main purpose to address country-specific or regional challenges such
as loss of traditional knowledge, coastal challenges, effects of climate change, poor
management of rural and remote areas, etc.
• International organizations, unions, networks, and international bodies like UN
Women and UNEP are also key initiators (N = 6). The programs initiated by this group
were typically aimed at effecting policy changes and empowering communities on a
large scale (e.g., the EmPower program in the Asia-Pacific region).
• International funds and charities: Some of the programs were supported/financed
by international charities and funding bodies (N = 4). For instance, the House Project,
which operates in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, India, and Jordan, is
backed by a few international charity organizations. Similarly, the International Fund
for Agricultural Development (IFAD) supports the National Community Empower-
ment Program in Indonesia.
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Several programs (N = 4) are headed
by NGOs, such as COSDEP in Kenya and The Tostan community in Senegal. These
organizations often focus on grassroots initiatives that are aimed at empowering local
communities through education, training, and capacity-building activities.
• Educational and Research Institutions: Educational institutions and research organi-
zations also contribute to these empowerment efforts (N = 3). The Family Wellbeing
Community Empowerment Education Program in Australia is one of the examples
of how educational entities can play a critical role in community development by
providing training for raising awareness and improving knowledge and skills.
• Corporate Actors/Private Companies: In a few cases (N = 2), corporate entities have
taken the lead in community empowerment efforts, particularly when their corporate
interests align with the development of local communities. For example, the Golden
Agri-Resources (GAR) initiated a fire management and community empowerment
program in Indonesia.
Most of the programs were developed to address the specific needs of vulnerable or
marginalized groups or communities such as farmers and rural communities. Therefore,
some programs were designed to support farmers, particularly those operating on a small
scale or within the indigenous communities. These initiatives focused on improving food
security, increasing income/wages, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices, as
evidenced by the programs in Kenya and West Papua. Women were another vulnerable
group that was targeted by a significant number of programs in order to enhance their
economic opportunities, provide education, and address gender disparities. For example,
the EmPower program in the Asia-Pacific region is one of the examples, focused on em-
powering women and promoting gender-responsive policies. Indigenous communities
were also considered in the program as an intended audience. There were certain initiatives
aiming at preserving cultural identity while simultaneously improving the economic and
social well-being of these groups, as seen in the programs in West Papua. Youth and
children were often brought up as well. For example, the Empowering Local Communities
initiative in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, India, and Jordan focused on
providing education, leadership skills, and health services to young people.
Some programs focused on communities that were vulnerable to climate change
risks. Many of the initiatives were tailored to support vulnerable or at-risk populations,
including those affected by climate change, poor health, or poverty. A few programs like
the LEADER+ initiative in rural Europe and the disaster-resilient communities’ program in
Nepal specialized in enhancing the resilience and self-sufficiency of these communities.
3.3. Key Structural Elements and List of Actions Listed in the Programs
Many programs had an iterative (stepwise) list of actions, while others initiated several
actions simultaneously. However, more narrowly specialized programs (e.g., programs 1
and 17) had a shorter list of actions, but they were more thoroughly developed and detailed.
Generally, for most programs, the final outcome was crucial, and for this purpose, a moni-
toring and evaluation plan along with indicators of goal achievement often appeared as the
last item in the program. As a rule, most programs had the following common structure:
(1) Awareness raising, problem identification, and understanding. The initial actions
most commonly involved awareness raising, defining, and understanding of prob-
lems/challenges of the communities.
(2) Learning, training, and capacity building. As the next step, programs usually
included actions towards capacity building, e.g., through delivering learning oppor-
tunities, training, workshops, etc. to obtain/extend necessary knowledge and skills.
(3) Enhancing community interaction through co-creation and participation. Once
communities had recognized their agency and acquired the necessary knowledge and
skills, the programs started to stimulate co-creation and participation among various
stakeholder groups, providing them with the opportunities to be heard, involving
communities (especially those groups that are underrepresented and marginalized) in
decision-making processes, and creating platforms for communication and exchange.
(4) Co-developing sustainable solutions and management plans for their implementa-
tion. Some programs included an action such as future vision formulation at this step.
(5) Assisting by the implementation. The next action was usually related to the support
by the implementation of decisions co-created with the community and the establish-
ment of proper management and leadership structures for the equal distribution of
resources and benefits. At this stage, small representative groups may be formed to act
on behalf of the community and advocate for their rights. Depending on the funding
as well as credibility, authority, power, and influence of the initiator, the community
received a certain amount of assistance with infrastructure development (e.g., road
and building construction or improvement) and support in the implementation of the
project along with the monitoring of its alignment with sustainability goals.
(6) Monitoring and evaluation. The final action in almost all the programs was the
monitoring and evaluation of the program’s success and achievement of set goals,
most often through the use of a certain list of indicators.
In summary, the most consistently used actions across all programs were mobilizing
the target group, capacity building, local knowledge exchange, and enhancing community
interaction (see Table 1). Other actions were applied more selectively, depending on the
specific focus and goals of the empowerment program.
3.4. Program Outputs and Empowerment Achieved (Incl. Definitions, Approaches, and Outcomes
of Empowerment)
3.4.1. Definition of Empowerment
In the reviewed programs, empowerment was defined and measured in various ways
focusing on its particular aspects/features. Only a few programs (13, 18, 19) used empower-
ment without defining it at all, however, they emphasized what particular approaches they
used (so-called “empowerment through” that will be analyzed later in this section). Often,
empowerment was understood as a practice of motivating individuals and communities to
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 26
take an action for accomplishing important goals or objectives. In most programs, empow-
erment has been described as a deliberate, ongoing process rooted in local communities
which can be characterized by “increasing self-reliance”, “a sense of control over own life”,
community
and knowledge,
“independence” and
mostly facilitating
through access tobuilding”
the “capacity development strategies. Therefore,
via “learning”, em-
“education”,
powerment
and optimizing in“access
this context is often seen
to resources” as increasing
as well the participation
as “collective community’sin capacity to handle
planning, deci-
its making,
sion challenges
andand improve overall
management” conditions.
that consider Thewisdom
“local emphasisandistraditional
on skill-building, recog-
knowledge”
(Figure
nizing4).community strengths, and enabling access to resources.
Figure
Figure 4. 4. Word
Word cloud
cloud of of empowerment
empowerment definitions
definitions used
used in in
thethe reviewed
reviewed programs.
programs.
However,
Programs many
that inprograms referred
their definition ofto empowerment
empowerment as notreferred
mostly only a to
process but also
enhancing com-
a transformative
munity self-reliance,outcome for individuals,
control, organizations,and
ownership, responsibility, andindependence,
entire communities that is at
were aimed
precisely
harnessingin line withresources
local the sustainability transformation
and knowledge, approach.
increasing It was mostly
community because
ownership, andtheen-
programs
couraging often emphasizedEmpowerment
responsibility. that simply makinghere ispeople
seen asfeel
the empowered was not
process of gaining enough.
control over
Thus,
one’sthey
life,also
withaimed at developing
the emphasis empowerment strategies
on providing/improving accesstotogain
localand apply thecollective
resources, actual
power needed to make significant, and
action, and the cultural aspects of empowerment. tangible improvements in the community and
people’s lives.
Several other programs defined empowerment through promoting participation, en-
The comprehensive
gagement, and collective analysis
actionofindefinitions
planning, found in the programs
decision-making, and allowed us to identify
management, focusing
four
on main focussocio-political
enhancing areas of empowerment:
involvement (1)and
capacity building,
ownership (2) self-reliance,
of initiatives. control,in
Empowerment
ownership, responsibility,
these programs is linkedand independence,
to community (3) participation,
involvement engagement,
in decision-making and
and collective
management
action, and (4) integration of local knowledge and values. Table 2 categorizes
of local and regional resources, fostering self-development, collective action, networking, different
focus areas related to empowerment in various community programs
and participation in socio-political processes, enabling them to achieve sustainability and defines how
these focus
goals. areas have been understood or implemented across different studies.
And lastly, a few programs understood empowerment by increasing the ability and
independence of the community through the integration of its local knowledge, values,
wisdom, and traditional practices into community initiatives. This focus area emphasizes
promoting cultural identity as part of empowerment. Consequently, empowerment is de-
fined as the preservation and integration of local cultural knowledge and practices into
community development, ensuring that modernization does not erase cultural identity.
Table 2. Definitions of empowerment found in the reviewed programs and their focus area and
features.
Main Features of the Corresponding Definitions of Empowerment Programs That Used It (More
Key Focus Area
Focus Area Provided in the Reviewed Programs Details See in Table S1)
building capacity of communities to secure their own
program 1
food, nutrition, and income at the household level
building capacity at a collective level to identify the
community’s strengths and needs to tackle issues for program 7
family, organizational, and community improvement
helping community members to become experts in
their lives and communities through capacity building,
program 8
building the individuals’ recognizing the values of community knowledge
and community’s capacity, and wisdom
providing skills, training, providing tailored capacity-building initiatives to help
(1) capacity building
and education to enable communities in their development and opening up
self-reliance and program 11
increased access to financing opportunities aligned
sustainable development with the SDGs
getting the capability to deal with the external world
program 12
and changes
building community capacity through skills training to
program 16
actively engage with the development process
optimizing human potential to achieve basic human
program 20
goals through capacity building
increased human capital through capacity building program 21
recognizing the power that lies within the
communities and working together to harness it;
providing access to resources and opportunities to
individuals and groups within a community to take
control of their own lives and achieve program 2
sustainable change;
fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility
within the community to solve their problems and
create a more equitable and just society
gaining power and control over people’s own lives, so
that the people get the support they need; this makes it
a joint task with professionals as a part of organizing
program 8
integrated care;
increasing community ownership and collective
actions that explicitly aim at social and political change
increasing independence of community residents
(2) self-reliance, increasing self-reliance, a without losing the cultural color in the form of local
control, ownership, sense of control over own program 9
wisdom and traditional knowledge in achieving life
responsibility and life, and independence by welfare or improving people’s quality of life
independence optimizing local resources
gaining control over people’s lives by developing new
skills, generating new knowledge, and program 10
enhancing capability
gaining a sense of own collective strength by
community members;
developing the power of the group and exercising program 12
that power is the ultimate product of the community
facilitation process
unveiling the forgotten cultural stories behind
communities through gaining a sense of own
program 14
collective strength, with the assistance of governments
and financial supports
gaining control over the factors and decisions that
program 16
shape people’s lives
making the community and its members independent
so they can improve their lives by optimizing the program 21
resources they have
Table 2. Cont.
Main Features of the Corresponding Definitions of Empowerment Programs That Used It (More
Key Focus Area
Focus Area Provided in the Reviewed Programs Details See in Table S1)
recognizing the power that lies within the
communities and working together to harness, program 2
promoting social, economic, and political participation
engaging communities by providing human
rights-based education classes for adults and youth,
and through training and support of a community programs 3 and 4
active participation in management committee to advance
collective decision-making, community projects
(3) participation, fostering ownership, and
engagement, and engaging communities in planning, decision-making,
enhancing community
collective action and managing their local resources through
engagement in
self-development, collective action, and networking, program 6
socio-political processes
ultimately enabling them to achieve economic,
ecological, and social self-reliance
strengthening local participation in the sustainable
program 15
development of coastal regions
empowerment is linked to participation program 16
networking and building synergy within
program 20
the community
recognizing the values of community knowledge
integrating local program 8
and wisdom
knowledge, wisdom, and
(4) integration of local traditional practices into increasing the ability and independence of community
knowledge and values community initiatives to residents without losing the cultural color in the form
promote identity as a part of local wisdom and traditional knowledge in program 9
of empowerment achieving life welfare or improving people’s quality
of life
In particular, those programs that defined empowerment focusing mostly on capacity

building involved such elements as enhancing individual and community skills, education,
and resources to foster self-reliance and sustainable development. This includes various
training activities to secure basic needs like food and income, recognizing community
knowledge, and facilitating access to development strategies. Therefore, empowerment in
this context is often seen as increasing the community’s capacity to handle its challenges
and improve overall conditions. The emphasis is on skill-building, recognizing community
strengths, and enabling access to resources.
Programs that in their definition of empowerment mostly referred to enhancing
community self-reliance, control, ownership, responsibility, and independence, were aimed
at harnessing local resources and knowledge, increasing community ownership, and
encouraging responsibility. Empowerment here is seen as the process of gaining control
over one’s life, with the emphasis on providing/improving access to local resources,
collective action, and the cultural aspects of empowerment.
Several other programs defined empowerment through promoting participation, en-
gagement, and collective action in planning, decision-making, and management, focusing
on enhancing socio-political involvement and ownership of initiatives. Empowerment in
these programs is linked to community involvement in decision-making and management
of local and regional resources, fostering self-development, collective action, networking,
and participation in socio-political processes, enabling them to achieve sustainability goals.
And lastly, a few programs understood empowerment by increasing the ability and
independence of the community through the integration of its local knowledge, values,
wisdom, and traditional practices into community initiatives. This focus area emphasizes
promoting cultural identity as part of empowerment. Consequently, empowerment is
defined as the preservation and integration of local cultural knowledge and practices into
community development, ensuring that modernization does not erase cultural identity.
Hereby, we can see the multifaceted nature of empowerment, with different programs
focusing on various aspects such as capacity building, self-reliance, participation, and the
integration of local knowledge. Each focus area is associated with specific definitions of
empowerment, reflecting on the diversity in how empowerment is conceptualized and
operationalized in different contexts. Often, programs include several or even all focus
areas in their definition of empowerment demonstrating the importance of a complex and
comprehensive approach to empowerment. The examples provided in Table 2 illustrate
how different programs apply these concepts in practice, showing the range of strategies
used to empower communities.
3.4.2. Types of Empowerment Identified

Based on the results or outputs of various empowerment programs, empowerment can
be categorized into several types: personal, economic, political, organizational, community,
gender, digital, environmental, and social. These categories often overlapped, with many
programs aiming to achieve multiple forms of empowerment simultaneously. Community
and social empowerment were mentioned most frequently, followed by economic, gender,
and personal empowerment. In contrast, digital empowerment appeared rarely.
Community Empowerment tended to promote community participation and inclusion
as well as support social capital and networking development. For instance, programs
such as “Empowering Local Communities: Building Stronger and Sustainable Futures”
(Colombia, Dominican Republic, etc.), and “Resilient Coastal Area Development and
Empowerment Program” (Java, Indonesia) focused on community participation in decision-
making processes and building resilience and self-sufficiency. Meanwhile, the “Compass for
Rural Europe” program, which highlighted the importance of social capital and community
networking, also promoted community empowerment, aiming to enhance community
collaboration and collective action for sustainable development.
Social Empowerment supported social cohesion, welfare, human rights, and social
justice. Many programs addressed social empowerment by improving community welfare
and cohesion. For instance, the “Indigenous Community Empowerment Program on the
Sustainability of the Local Food Crops in West Papua” (Indonesia) provided access to health,
education, and basic services to vulnerable groups, fostering social inclusion. The “Tostan’s
Community Empowerment Program” focused on promoting human rights education and
social mobilization skills to achieve dignity and equality for all community members.
Economic Empowerment stimulated income generation and financial stability of the
communities. This type of empowerment is a central goal for programs such as the “Na-
tional Community Empowerment Program” in Indonesian Villages, aiming to increase
agricultural productivity and household income through improved financial literacy and
resource management. Job creation and entrepreneurship support were also a part of eco-
nomic empowerment. As an example, the “Promoting Economic Empowerment Through
Effective Implementation and Linking Social Capital in Urban Agriculture Programs” in
Malaysia emphasized creating job opportunities and fostering entrepreneurship in urban
agriculture through providing training, technical assistance, and policy support.
Personal Empowerment was presented to some extent in all programs and advocated for
self-esteem, life skills education, and knowledge acquisition. Several programs focused on
enhancing self-confidence and life skills. For example, the “Family Wellbeing Community
Empowerment Education Program” in Australia aimed to help Aboriginal people move
from a place of self-blame and victimhood to a position of strength and control. Programs
such as the “Tostan’s Community Empowerment Program” in West Africa empowered
a personal sense of control and confidence by providing fundamental education in local
languages and enhancing personal knowledge and skills, including literacy, numeracy, and
health knowledge.
Political Empowerment supported participation in governance, democracy, and lead-
ership development. These goals were pursued by programs such as the “SAKSHAM—
Strengthening Local Governance for Disaster-Resilient Communities” in Nepal, which
aimed to increase community participation in disaster risk management and local gov-
ernance. The “LEADER+ program” in rural Europe provided another good example of
political empowerment since it encouraged bottom-up approaches and democratic decision-

making, aiming to enhance local governance and leadership skills.
Organizational Empowerment provided capacity building, institutional strengthening,
and knowledge transfer. Many programs focused on organizational empowerment by
reinforcing local institutions and community organizations. For instance, the “Sustain-
ability of Community Empowerment as Development Strategies” program in Indonesian
villages promoted the capacity building of local government to support community-driven
development. At the same time, there were programs such as the “Desa Makmur Peduli
Api Community Empowerment Program” in Indonesia, which were aimed at providing
political empowerment through technology and knowledge transfer to improve forest
management and organisational structures of the communities.
Environmental Empowerment intended to provide sustainable practices and environ-
mental stewardship, making communities resilient to external environmental shocks. As an
example, the “Community Sustainable Development Empowerment Program” in Kenya,
focused on teaching sustainable agricultural practices to enhance food security and envi-
ronmental conservation. Also, the “SAKSHAM” program in Nepal and the “EmPower”
program in the Asia-Pacific region aimed at building climate resilience through sustainable
practices and disaster risk management.
Gender Empowerment equipped communities with several gender-responsive policies
and actions, making all gender groups well-represented and loaded up with tailored
services. For instance, the “EmPower: Women for Climate-Resilient Societies” program
in the Asia-Pacific region focused on establishing gender-responsive energy policies and
promoting women’s leadership in climate resilience efforts. This program also supported
women in setting up economic livelihood projects that leveraged renewable energy, thus
addressing both gender and economic empowerment.
As previously mentioned, digital empowerment which aimed at providing access to
digital technologies and skills was less common and only addressed in the “LEADER+
program”. This program encouraged the implementation of technological innovation to
make rural products and services more competitive, thus indirectly promoting digital
literacy and empowerment.
Analysis of the programs allowed us to reveal how and through what particular
actions the processes of empowerment happened (Figure 5). We have identified five
main approaches used for community empowerment that demonstrated how particularly
(i.e., through which actions) empowerment as a process occurred as well as what its key
outcomes were. We found out that one of the primary ways to empower communities
was through education and training (e.g., by offering essential skills, knowledge, and
educational opportunities to community members, empowering them to enhance their
livelihoods, make decisions, etc.). As a result, the community got a sense of control and self-
reliance as well as enhanced skills, knowledge, and awareness about sustainability-related
matters (e.g., relevant for programs 1, 3, 7, 10). Another critical measure was building the
capacity and resilience of communities. This involved improving their ability to respond
to challenges systematically, manage local resources sustainably, and make informed de-
cisions collectively (e.g., found in programs 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21). Empowerment was
also achieved through fostering active participation and collective action among commu-
nities along with promoting networking and information exchange within and between
communities (e.g., to spread knowledge and advocate for shared goals). This encouraged
community members to be engaged in decision-making processes, collaborate to address
local challenges, and increase social and political participation, fostering participatory
behaviors, and organizational and other stakeholder networks. Moreover, it allowed for
ensuring that community members have a voice in shaping policies and practices that
affected their lives (e.g., relevant for programs 2, 3, 4, 8). Often, empowerment initiatives
integrate local knowledge, cultural practices, and traditional values into their strategies.
This approach ensures that community development is culturally relevant and promotes
cultural and regional identity (programs 9, 14, 15, and 20). Improving community access to
resources (incl. information) and essential services (e.g., healthcare, education, and social
welfare) is another key approach to empowerment. It aims to provide equal opportunities
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26
for all (including marginalized groups and women) by ensuring that communities have
enough resources needed for a better quality of life.
Figure 5. Synthesis
Figure 5. Synthesis of
of the
the empowerment
empowerment programs’ approaches and
programs’ approaches and outcomes.
outcomes.
3.5. Main
3.5. Main Approaches
Approaches Used
Used for
for Program
Program Monitoring
Monitoring and and Evaluation
Evaluation
The evaluation and monitoring indicators
The evaluation and monitoring indicators used in used in the
the programs
programs can can bebe categorized
categorized
into several key areas, including social impact, economic outcomes,
into several key areas, including social impact, economic outcomes, environmental environmental sustain-
ability, participation
sustainability, and engagement,
participation and infrastructure
and engagement, development.
and infrastructure development.
1. Social Impact. Health, education, and welfare:
1. Social Impact. Health, education, and welfare: IndicatorsIndicators often measured improve-
often measured
ments in health outcomes, educational access, and overall community
improvements in health outcomes, educational access, and overall community well-beingwell-being (e.g., The
Empowering Local Communities program in Colombia and the
(e.g., The Empowering Local Communities program in Colombia and the DominicanDominican Republic used
indicatorsused
Republic like indicators
access to quality education
like access and education
to quality improved and housing to assess
improved socialto
housing impact).
assess
For the purpose of monitoring and evaluation of cultural and emotional well-being, the
social impact). For the purpose of monitoring and evaluation of cultural and emotional
programs often used specific tools to measure emotional and psychological impacts (e.g.,
well-being, the programs often used specific tools to measure emotional and
the Family Wellbeing Community Empowerment Education Program in Australia estab-
psychological impacts (e.g., the Family Wellbeing Community Empowerment Education
lished and implemented the tool named Growth and Empowerment Measure to evaluate
Program in Australia established and implemented the tool named Growth and
emotional well-being and the effectiveness of addressing fundamental life issues among
Empowerment Measure to evaluate emotional well-being and the effectiveness of
Aboriginal people).
addressing fundamental life issues among Aboriginal people).
2. Economic Outcomes. To evaluate the changes in income and employment, in-
2. Economic Outcomes. To evaluate the changes in income and employment,
dicators often tracked job creation, income levels, and financial stability (e.g., the Desa
indicators often tracked job creation, income levels, and financial stability (e.g., the Desa
Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program in Indonesia measured the num-
Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program in Indonesia measured the
ber of new jobs created, increases in earnings, and improvements in food security). Other
number
indicators ofwere
new proposed
jobs created, increases
to monitor how in programs
earnings, affected
and improvements in food security).
economic opportunities, espe-
Other
cially inindicators were proposed
rural or marginalized to monitor
communities (e.g., thehow programs
Tostan’s Community affected economic
Empowerment
opportunities,
Program in Senegal especially
evaluatedin rural or marginalized
economic opportunities communities
that were created(e.g.,forthe
womenTostan’s
and
Community Empowerment
marginalized groups). Program in Senegal evaluated economic opportunities that
were3.created for women
Environmental and marginalized
Sustainability. groups).
To monitor and evaluate the adoption of sustainable
3. Environmental Sustainability.
practices, some programs applied certain indicators To monitorforand evaluatethethe
measuring adoption
extent to which of
sustainable
communitiespractices,
adopted some programs applied
environmentally certain
sustainable indicators
practices (e.g.,for
themeasuring
Community theSustain-
extent
to which communities adopted environmentally sustainable
able Development Empowerment Program in Kenya tracked adoption rates of sustainable practices (e.g., the
Community Sustainable Development Empowerment Program in
agricultural practices and improvements in soil fertility). Engagement in environmental Kenya tracked
adoption rates of sustainable agricultural practices and improvements in soil fertility).
Engagement in environmental activities was assessed with the use of indicators such as
community members’ involvement in environmental conservation and other actions (e.g.,
the Desa Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program that measured
activities was assessed with the use of indicators such as community members’ involve-
ment in environmental conservation and other actions (e.g., the Desa Makmur Peduli
Api Community Empowerment Program that measured community engagement in forest
management as an indicator of environmental sustainability).
4. Participation and engagement. For the purpose of community involvement evalua-
tion, some programs used indicators that measured the level of community participation in
decision-making and planning processes (e.g., the National Community Empowerment
Program in Indonesian Villages recorded participation in community consultations as a key
indicator of engagement). Several programs also monitored the development of leadership
skills and the establishment of community organizations (e.g., the Tostan’s Community Em-
powerment Program that also measured the promotion of female leadership and grassroots
democracy as indicators of social empowerment).
5. Infrastructure development. In terms of physical infrastructure development,
several indicators related to the construction and improvement of infrastructure such
as roads, buildings, and public facilities were found (e.g., the National Community Em-
powerment Program included road construction as a measurable indicator). For tracking
service provision, some programs applied monitoring of the availability and quality of
basic services such as healthcare, education, and childcare. For example, the Empow-
ering Local Communities Program used access to basic services as the indicator of the
program’s success.
6. Innovation and capacity building. This category is represented by a few indicators
showing the adoption of innovative practices or technologies (e.g., the LEADER+ program
in rural Europe tracked the number of bottom-up initiatives and the implementation of
new financing instruments). To monitor and evaluate the capacity-building processes
and outcomes, such indicators as the increase in local capacities, knowledge transfer, and
skill development were used (e.g., the Community Sustainable Development Empower-
ment Program in Kenya evaluated the increase in community knowledge and skills as a
primary indicator).
During the review process, we have identified approx. 90 indicators that the programs
used to monitor and evaluate the sustainability transition and empowerment to be achieved
(examples are provided in Table 3). We have grouped them into six main thematic areas
that include:
(1) Awareness Raising, Participation, and Attitude and Behavior: to measure the effectiveness
of awareness efforts/campaigns, community engagement, and changes in attitude
and behaviors.
(2) Economic Indicators: to track job creation, income levels, and adoption of sustain-
able practices.
(3) Environmental Indicators: to monitor ecosystem health and provision of ecosystem
services, soil fertility, sustainable agriculture, mitigating climate change, and other
environmental issues.
(4) Social Indicators: to measure access to education, housing, social integration and
equality, and disaster preparedness.
(5) Health and Well-being Indicators: to evaluate improvement in public health, nutrition,
access to health services, etc.
(6) Governance Indicators: to examine grassroots initiatives, policy effectiveness, and
climate-related policy adoption.
We can conclude that the evaluation and monitoring indicators used in the programs
are diverse and always tailored to the specific goals of each initiative. They ranged from
assessing social and economic impacts to monitoring environmental sustainability and
infrastructure development. Programs frequently combined quantitative metrics (e.g.,
the number of jobs created or adoption rates of sustainable practices) with qualitative
assessments (e.g., improvements in community well-being or leadership development)
to allow more complex evaluation. These indicators were intended to ensure that the
programs did not simply achieve their planned outcomes but also contributed to the
long-term empowerment and sustainability of the communities they served.
Table 3. Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of sustainability im-
pact/transition and empowerment.
Examples
Groups of Indicators
(Programs Where the Indicator Was Found)
- Number of awareness-raising meetings conducted (program 1)
- Changes in the target group’s attitudes toward unsustainable practices (program 1)
- Amount of people engaged in sustainable forest management practices (program 4)
- % of group members actively engaged in community consultation meetings (program 5)
- % of communities with development plans implemented via inclusive consultation
process (program 5)
- % satisfaction among villagers with facilitation services received (program 5)
Awareness raising, participation, - Improved traditional knowledge in achieving welfare (program 9)
and attitude and behavior - Knowledge of climate resilience acquired (program 13)
- Number of/increase in local partnerships (e.g., established local action groups/LAGs)
(program 12)
- Networking between LAGs and national and transnational cooperation (program 12)
- Subjective evaluation of improvements in the participation level (program 16)
- Frequency of participation in sustainability-related activities (program 16)
- Number of people trained in sustainable natural resources management and/or
biodiversity conservation (program 17)
- Rate of adoption leading to decreased dependence on external inputs (program 1)

- Sales per unit area as an indicator of increased household income (program 1)
- Increase in economic opportunities at a local level (program 3)
- New green jobs created (program 4)
- Earnings increased (programs 4, 21)
- Improved food stock (program 4)
- New jobs created in sustainable forest management (program 4)
- % of households suffering from the first hungry season (program 5)
- % of village funds allocated for economic activities in project villages (program 5)
- Improved traditional knowledge in achieving welfare (program 9)
Economic
- New financing instruments used at the local level—the ‘global grant’ mechanism
(program 12)
- Number of improved agricultural production programs that enhance food
self-sufficiency for households (program 13)
- Number of people with increased economic benefits and diversified sources of income
(program 17)
- Costs reduction of future damage and disruption from flooding and coastal erosion
(program 19)
- Number of business companies that tested and demonstrated innovative practical
resilience actions (program 19)
- Production per unit area as an indicator of improved soil fertility (program 1)

- Number of adults and children trained as environmental leaders (program 2)
- % of farmers who adopted recommended sustainable technologies (program 5)
- Number of improved agricultural production programs that enhance food
self-sufficiency for households (program 13)
- % of farmers that adopted improved agricultural techniques (program 13)
- Number of demonstration plots showcasing climate-resilient agriculture (program 13)
Environmental
- Number of strategic action plans developed for DRR (program 13)
- Increase in ecosystem services delivery provided by coastal ecosystems (program 18)
- Increase in populations of particular coastal species/Number of species (program 18)
- Number of development practices respectful to the diverse Mediterranean coastal zones’
(program 18)
- Reduced number and consequences of flooding (program 19)
- Reduced number and consequences of coastal erosion (program 19)
Table 3. Cont.
Examples
Groups of Indicators
(Programs Where the Indicator Was Found)
- Number of children that have access to quality education and the resources they need to
succeed (program 2)
- Number of families that have safe and comfortable homes to live in (program 2)
- Improvement of literacy and math skills (in%) (program 3)
- Amount of people trained (program 4)
- Number of women participating in community management (program 5)
- Number of women participating in climate resilience activities (program 11)
- Number of women participating in climate and DRR decision-making (program 11)
- Number of people who participated in flood simulation exercises (program 13)
Social (e.g., related to education, - Number of individuals received training in disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and
housing, integration, and management (program 13)
equality) - % of local government officials trained in improved Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
planning (program 13)
- Number of communities that participated in community empowerment-building
programs (program 14)
- Number of community associations that contributed to social integration and cohesion
(program 14)
- Rate of participation in Training programs (program 16)
- Number of women engaged in participation practices (program 16)
- Infrastructure: Roads constructed/km (programs 5, 9)
- Infrastructure: Number of transport facilities constructed (program 9)
- Health prevention in the community through better nutrition (number of related

programs) (program 2)
- Improved behaviors for the reduction of malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases
(program 3)
Health and well-being - Reduction in the prevalence of child malnutrition (height for age) (program 5)
- Better access to health services through the increase in their number (program 7)
- Change in food consumption towards the regional and healthy products (program 9)
- Improved access to fresh and healthy food (program 10)
- Number of households with improved well-being (program 17)
- Number of grassroots initiatives established (program 3)

- Number/increase in female leadership and engagement in the community and local
government (programs 3, 11, 16)
- Satisfaction level from beneficiaries regarding improved livelihoods since project
start-up (program 5)
- Women’s participation in community groups (programs 5, 11)
- Number of/increase in ‘bottom-up’ initiatives in planning and execution of decisions
(program 12)
- -Number of/increase in innovative and integrated or multi-sectoral solutions to rural
problems (program 12)
- Number of associations containing key local development actors from the public and
non-public sectors (program 12)
Governance
- Number of Community Disaster Management Committees (CDMCs) established
(program 13)
- Beneficiaries’ level of participation in poverty reduction (program 16)
- Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements, or regulations addressing
climate change (mitigation or adaptation) and/or biodiversity conservation officially
proposed or adopted (program 17)
- Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues
(program 17)
- Number of land use policies respectful to the diverse Mediterranean coastal zones’
(program 18)
- Decrease in the gender gap in environmental management (number of women involved)
(program 18)
4. Discussion
4.1. Reflection on the Programs’ Main Features
Geographical context. The reviewed programs spanned across multiple geographical
regions, with particular focus on rural and indigenous communities, especially in Indonesia,
and several countries in Africa and Europe. This distribution corresponds to the global
recognition of the need for community empowerment in regions that face significant socio-
economic and environmental challenges (e.g., mentioned in the global programs [14–17]).
The focus on rural areas aligns with the broader objectives of many programs reviewed as
well as the overall EU (e.g., Rural Pact Community Platform programs, Rural revitalization,
etc.) and UN (e.g., FAO work area on Rural Institutions, Services, and Empowerment)
agendas on supporting sustainable development of rural areas. Several studies [9,11,36]
point out that rural areas should receive more attention when ensuring balanced and
sustainable regional development. Most of the reviewed programs are aimed at addressing
fundamental issues such as poverty, lack of education, and insufficient access to basic
services. The focus on rural areas also highlights the importance of localized approaches,
where empowerment strategies are tailored to the cultural and environmental contexts of
the communities they serve as well as preserve regional identity, traditional knowledge,
and local wisdom [11].
Challenges and objectives. The programs predominantly target a broad range of chal-
lenges, with the lack of education and capacity being the most frequently addressed. This
emphasis on education is critical, as it forms the foundation for long-term sustainable
development by enhancing individual and community capacities to manage resources,
participate in decision-making, and achieve self-reliance (that corresponds to [9,11]). The
significant focus on capacity building across many programs indicates a strategic approach
to empowerment, aiming to equip communities with the necessary skills and knowledge
in order to address their challenges independently and increase self-efficiency. That is
in line with classical definitions of empowerment (see [26,27,37]). The need for building
individual and collective capacities to deliberately transform systems and structures in a
manner that is both ethical and sustainable is also highlighted by [2,38,39]. The reviewed
programs also focus on addressing the lack of basic services, poor governance, environ-
mental degradation, and economic insecurity. These challenges are interconnected, and the
programs’ multi-faceted objectives reflect a comprehensive understanding of sustainability
that goes beyond social and economic dimensions and includes environmental concerns.
The emphasis on integrating local knowledge and values into these initiatives is particularly
noteworthy, as it ensures that empowerment efforts are culturally relevant and sustainable
(as also mentioned by [6,11]).
Program structure and implementation. Interestingly, while many programs incorpo-
rate a certain number of actions, there is a clear emphasis on capacity building, local
knowledge exchange, and community interaction. Thus, the structure of the programs
typically follows a phased (sometimes stepwise) methodological approach, beginning with
awareness-raising and problem identification, followed by learning, education, and training
to build capacity that allows for making decisions collaboratively and to co-create innova-
tive and contextualized solutions based on local knowledge and values. These elements
are crucial for the success of empowerment initiatives, as they build the foundation for
sustained community engagement and resilience (as also emphasized by [9,23,27,40]). Such
stepwise methodology ensures that communities are not only involved in the process of
sustainability transformation but are central to it, in turn fostering a sense of ownership and
responsibility. That is also demonstrated in other studies [1,10,12,13]) confirming that local
communities have a certain capacity to be a part of and in some cases drivers of the local
sustainable development. All the reviewed programs are based on the active involvement
of diverse actors (including governments, NGOs, and educational institutions, but also
international organizations) highlighting the value of co-creation and the collaborative
nature of these efforts. It is underlined as a key for merging various types of resources,
knowledge, expertise, and influence to achieve the desired outcomes. The iterative nature
of these programs, in several cases with continuous monitoring and evaluation, allows for
adaptability and responsiveness to changing community needs and external conditions.
Outputs and impact. The outputs of these programs vary, but common themes include
increased self-reliance, enhanced decision-making capacities, and improved access to
resources. Many programs report significant progress in empowering communities to
take control over their development processes, leading to tangible improvements in social,
economic, and environmental conditions. The focus on long-term sustainability is evident
in the programs’ efforts to build resilience, promote environmental stewardship, and
enhance economic security. However, the diversity in how empowerment is defined
and implemented across different programs demonstrates that there is no one-size-fits-
all approach. Instead, successful empowerment depends on a deep understanding of
local contexts and the ability to tailor strategies to meet specific community needs. Other
studies [7,11,12,41] also stated that community empowerment requires locally adapted
(tailored) strategies that address the unique needs and challenges of each community. As a
result of our review, we can conclude that the programs which integrate local knowledge
and cultural practices can be particularly effective in achieving sustained empowerment,
as they are able to resonate more deeply with the communities and foster a stronger
sense of ownership and agency. Moreover, almost all the reviewed programs underlined
the importance of monitoring and evaluation of both empowerment and sustainability
transformation processes and outcomes. For this purpose, the programs developed a set of
indicators to not only monitor the changes but also to ensure the efficiency of the program.
The need for the development of an appropriate evaluation index system to measure the
impact and progress achieved within sustainability transformation was also emphasized
by other studies [4,11,42–44].
4.2. Empowerment and Sustainable Development/Transformation: How Are They Interlinked?

The role of community empowerment in sustainability transformation. The results indicate
that community empowerment is a pivotal factor in the broader sustainability transfor-
mation discourse. In contrast to classical sustainability management approaches (e.g.,
Collaborative Adaptive Management, Community-based natural resource management,
Ecosystem-Based Management, etc. [45–47], the reviewed programs emphasize the ne-
cessity of moving beyond those traditional approaches to sustainability that include top-
down elements. In particular, they advocate for a participatory model that integrates
local knowledge, fosters social innovations, and builds capacities within communities.
Such a model (also described by [6,26,27]) allows researchers and community to jointly
co-define local problems/challenges, to co-produce and share knowledge for useful col-
lective actions towards sustainability, especially through establishing partnerships and
networks [8,22]. The reviewed programs illustrate that empowered communities are not
merely passive recipients of sustainability initiatives but active contributors to the decision-
making processes that shape their environments and lives. This finding resonates with
the literature that emphasizes the significance of community engagement in achieving
sustainability goals [10,12,37]. The ability of local communities to influence sustainabil-
ity outcomes through their knowledge, values, and behaviors is critical in addressing
socio-environmental challenges.
Key characteristics of successful empowerment programs. The analysis of empowerment
programs highlights several key characteristics that contribute to their success in promoting
sustainability and achieving transformative change(s). Firstly, the programs that were
most effective in delivering sustainability outcomes were those that involved a synergetic
approach, aligning scientific evidence with community knowledge and participation. This
approach not only enhanced the relevance and applicability of sustainability strategies but
also fostered a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility among community members.
Furthermore, the programs demonstrated the importance of a comprehensive empower-
ment process that includes individual psychological empowerment, the development of
small mutual groups, the formation of community organizations, the building of partner-
ships and networks, and the undertaking of social and political action. These elements are
consistent with the theoretical frameworks that define empowerment as both a process and
an outcome [27,30,32]. Looking at the empowerment definitions and processes within the
reviewed programs, we can state that they often refer to gaining access to resources as well
as the capacity and willingness to mobilize resources to achieve sustainability goals (that
corresponds to [28]). Interestingly, this finding is closely related to the understanding of the
empowering process by the EEA ([20], p. 69) stating that “. . . involving citizens in decision-
making may help alleviate feelings of alienation and helplessness (that citizens have no
influence)”. By addressing multiple dimensions of empowerment, the programs were
able to build the necessary capacity within communities to mobilize resources, influence
institutions, and actively participate in sustainability decision-making.
4.3. Limitations
Due to insufficient resource availability (many programs are accessible in the local
languages only) and time limitations, it was impossible to include all geographical regions
and cultural contexts. Moreover, considering the use of a semi-systematic approach for
this literature review, we did not collect a large sample of materials. However, to achieve
the research goals, we mostly applied the qualitative analysis of the data that does not
necessarily need a big sample. Another issue relates to the fact that even though they were
called empowerment programs, in reality, some of them were only incremental actions
without any particular list of goals, planned activities, expected results, and/or relation
to sustainability. Also, a lack of data related to certain indicators for monitoring and
evaluation or program elements could have had a particular impact on the obtained results
and their interpretation. Additionally, there were difficulties in obtaining the final reports
and the data on program assessment due to the fact that some programs were initiated by
governmental bodies.
4.4. Remaining Questions and Directions for Future Research

The review of community empowerment programs underlines the vital role that com-
munity empowerment plays in driving sustainability transformations. These programs
demonstrate a variety of approaches to empowerment, highlighting the importance of
engaging local communities in sustainability processes. However, we also reveal several
knowledge gaps in the current understanding of how to systematically develop and imple-
ment community empowerment programs towards sustainability and resilience. Although
there are particular examples of successful empowerment programs, there is still a lack of
understanding of their conceptual framework that enables their design, implementation,
and evaluation in other local contexts (potential for replication and upscaling). A more
structured, easy-to-use, and iterative approach to community empowerment in the con-
text of sustainability will be beneficial for a broader uptake of such programs and their
easier implementation.
We argue that there is still a need for continuing research on collecting best practices
and monitoring the results of ongoing empowerment programs in order to extend the
data and knowledge base on their efficiency, contribution to sustainability, and evidence of
empowerment. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation is a crucial part of such programs as
it allows for measuring changes, identifying trends, and capturing knowledge to improve
programs’ performance and finally demonstrate their transformative impact. The latter was
especially underlined by [48] who emphasized the urgent need to focus on interventions
with a higher transformative potential for sustainability. As it was stated by several stud-
ies [11,42–44], the well-developed evaluation framework could serve as objective guidance
for policymakers in assessing the effectiveness of sustainable development measures to be
implemented. Thus, community empowerment programs in the context of sustainability
should give clear evidence of their transformative potential and impact. It means that
the programs have to clearly define the expected transformative changes that will result
in fundamental, system-wide reorganization of technological, economic, environmental,
and social factors to not only achieve the global sustainability goals but also address local
challenges and needs.
5. Conclusions
Empowering communities for sustainable development is central to all programs
reviewed. In all cases, empowerment goes far beyond involving the community in par-
ticular sustainability-related actions or interventions. It also encourages self-reliance and
enables gaining a sense of control, ownership, and collective strength that consequently
enhances the ability to make informed decisions to act independently. The analysis of
the programs reveals that they drive transformative processes which involve addressing
local challenges, promoting inclusivity and equity through participatory approaches, and
recognizing and enhancing the power that lies within a community. The identified empow-
erment approaches (e.g., learning, education, and training; capacity building; participation,
collective action, and networking; providing access to resources and services; and integra-
tion of local knowledge and values and cultural and regional identity) proved themselves
as successful in community sustainable development. The outcomes of community em-
powerment not only result in the improvement of quality of life and well-being but also
contribute to societies’ resilience, self-sufficiency, and independence in shaping sustainable
and just futures.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16198700/s1, Table S1: Key characteristics of the empowerment
programs included in the review. Refs. [49–70] are cited in Supplementary Materials.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.D.; methodology, D.D. and O.I.; validation, D.D. and
O.I.; formal analysis, D.D.; investigation, D.D. and O.I.; resources, D.D. and O.I.; data curation, D.D.
and O.I.; writing—original draft preparation, D.D. and O.I.; writing—review and editing, D.D. and
O.I.; visualization, D.D. and O.I.; supervision, D.D.; project administration, D.D.; funding acquisition,
D.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was conducted within the project: “Socio-economic Empowerment of coastal
communities as users of the sea to ensure sustainable coastal development (EmpowerUs)” funded by
the European Union under the Horizon Europe Program, Grant No. 101059957. The research was
conducted within the scope of the UFZ Research Unit 1 “Ecosystems of the future” and Research Unit
6 “Environment and society”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: References and links to the programs reviewed in this study as well as
their summary are provided in Supplementary Material (Table S1).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Marie Vandewalle for the administrative, technical and
scientific support during the manuscript preparation. We are very grateful to Maria Ignatieva and
Anastasia Konstantinova for their valuable expertise and advices. Our special thanks go to Victoria
Novikova-Dickey for her great assistance with the proof reading of the manuscript. The authors
also extend their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their helpful reviews and
constructive comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Linnér, B.-O.; Wibeck, V. Conceptualising variations in societal transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020,
106, 221–227. [CrossRef]
2. O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 667–676.
[CrossRef]
3. Wittmer, H.B.A.; Büttner, L.; Chakrabarty, R.; Förster, J.; Khan, S.; König, C.; Krause, G.; Kreuer, D.; Locher-Krause, K.; Moreno
Soares, T.; et al. Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons—Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean. In
Recommendations for International Cooperation Based on a Review of Global Assessment Reports and Project Experience; UFZ: Leipzig,
Germany, 2021.
4. Patterson, J.; Schulz, K.; Vervoort, J.; van der Hel, S.; Widerberg, O.; Adler, C.; Hurlbert, M.; Anderton, K.; Sethi, M.; Barau, A.S.
Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
5. Scoones, I.; Stirling, A.; Abrol, D.; Atela, J.; Charli-Joseph, L.; Eakin, H.; Yang, L. Transformations to sustainability: Combining
structural, systemic, and enabling approaches. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 65–75. [CrossRef]
6. Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A.; Filyushkina, A.; Johnson, D.N.; Lo, V.B.; López-Rodríguez, M.D.; March, H.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Peppler-
Lisbach, C.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Raymond, C.M.; et al. Scientific and local ecological knowledge shaping perceptions towards
protected areas and related ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 2549–2567. [CrossRef]
7. Coy, D.; Malekpour, S.; Saeri, A.K.; Dargaville, R. Rethinking community empowerment in the energy transformation: A critical
review of the definitions, drivers, and outcomes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 72, 101871. [CrossRef]
8. Fuhr, H.; Hickmann, T.; Kern, K. The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: Local climate policies and the 1.5 ◦ C target.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 30, 1–6. [CrossRef]
9. Zikargae, M.H.; Woldearegay, A.G.; Skjerdal, T. Empowering rural society through non-formal environmental education: An
empirical study of environment and forest development community projects in Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09127. [CrossRef]
10. Kemmerzell, J.; Hofmeister, A. Innovationen in der Klimaschutzpolitik deutscher Großstädte. Polit. Vierteljahr. 2019, 60, 95–126.
[CrossRef]
11. Kurniawan, H.; Yulianto, R.S.; Mladenov, S.V.; Ardiansyah, M. Sustainable development through community empowerment
based on local wisdom. Int. J. Prog. Sci. Technol. 2023, 41, 164–176. [CrossRef]
12. Toniolo, S.; Pieretto, C.; Camana, D. Improving sustainability in communities: Linking the local scale to the concept of sustainable
development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 101, 107126. [CrossRef]
13. Zeigermann, U.; Kammerer, M.; Böcher, M. What drives local communities to engage in climate change mitigation activities?
Examining the rural–urban divide. Rev. Policy Res. 2023, 40, 894–919. [CrossRef]
14. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
15. World Bank. Global Program on Sustainability for Making Nature Count for People and Planet. World Bank Group. 2024. Avail-
able online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/global-program-on-sustainability#:~:text=About%20the%20Program,
private%20sector,%20and%20financial%20institutions (accessed on 21 May 2024).
16. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services; Brondizio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; p. 1148.
17. United Nations Environment Programme. Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity
and Pollution Emergencies. Nairobi. 2021. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature (accessed
on 28 September 2023).
18. EC. The European Green Deal. Striving to Be the First Climate-Neutral Continent. Available online: https://commission.europa.
eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 24 March 2024).
19. World Sustainability Organization. Annual Reports 2021–2023. Available online: https://www.wsogroup.org/wp-content/
uploads/2024/04/WSO-Annual-Report-2021-2023.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2024).
20. EEA. Sustainability Transitions: Policy and Practice; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2019.
21. Gonzalez-Porras, L.; Heikkinen, A.; Kujala, J.; Tapaninaho, R. Stakeholder engagement in sustainability transitions. In Research
Handbook of Sustainability Agency; Teerikangas, S., Onkila, T., Koistinen, K., Mäkelä, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2021;
pp. 214–229.
22. Hölsgens, R.; Wascher, E.; Bauer, C.; Boll, J.; Bund, S.; Dankwart-Kammoun, S.; Heese, I.; Schrot, K.; Schultze, J.; Tenambergen, R.
Transdisciplinary research along the logic of empowerment: Perspectives from four urban and regional transformation projects.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4599. [CrossRef]
23. Sieber, I.M.; Carrasco, A.R.; Gañán de Molina, C.; Prall, M.; Tiwari, A.; Ntemiri, S.; Bunnefeld, N.; Ponton Cevallos, J. Building
Resilient Coastal Communities through Nature-Based Solutions and Empowerment Tools; Eklipse Evidence Report 01/2024; Zenodo:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2024. [CrossRef]
24. Soma, K.; Dijkshoorn-Dekker, M.W.C.; Polman, N.B.P. Stakeholder contributions through transitions towards urban sustainability.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 438–450. [CrossRef]
25. Vignola, R.; Locatelli, B.; Martinez, C.; Imbach, P. Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: What role for policy-makers,
society, and scientists? Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2009, 14, 691–696. [CrossRef]
26. Avelino, F. Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards
sustainability. Environ. Policy Gov. 2017, 27, 505–520. [CrossRef]
27. Avelino, F.; Wittmayer, J.M.; Pel, B.; Weaver, P.; Dumitru, A.; Haxeltine, A.; Kemp, R.; Jørgensen, M.S.; Bauler, T.; Ruijsink, S.; et al.
Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 145, 195–206. [CrossRef]
28. Avelino, F.; Dumitru, A.; Cipolla, C.; Kunze, I.; Wittmayer, J. Translocal empowerment in transformative social innovation
networks. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 955–977. [CrossRef]
29. Laverack, G.; Wallerstein, N. Measuring community empowerment: A fresh look at organizational domains. Health Promot. Int.
2001, 16, 179–185. [CrossRef]
30. Perkins, D.D.; Zimmerman, M.A. Empowerment theory, research, and application. An introduction to a special issue. Am. J.
Community Psychol. 1995, 23, 569–579. [CrossRef]
31. Wang, B.; Ji, T.; He, R. Empowerment or disempowerment: The (dis)empowering processes and outcomes of co-designing with
rural craftspeople. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4468. [CrossRef]
32. Zimmerman, M.A. Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In Handbook of
Community Psychology; Rappaport, J., Seidman, E., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 43–63.
[CrossRef]
33. Avelino, F.; Wittmayer, J.M. Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-actor Perspective. J. Environ. Policy
Plan. 2016, 18, 628–649. [CrossRef]
34. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [CrossRef]
35. Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Gray, D. Collecting Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide to Textual, Media and Virtual Techniques; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017.
36. Roldan, C.S.; Giraldo, G.A.M.; Santana, E.L. Sustainable development in rural territories within the last decade: A review of the
state of the art. Heliyon 2023. [CrossRef]
37. Lyons, M.; Smuts, C.; Stephens, A. Participation, empowerment and sustainability: (How) do the links work? Urban Stud. 2001,
38, 1233–1251. [CrossRef]
38. Gimenes, T.C.; Machado, M.K.; Vernalha, E.B.R. Empowerment in sustainability. In Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher
Education; Leal Filho, W., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [CrossRef]
39. Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six transformations to achieve the
sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814. [CrossRef]
40. Petriello, M.A.; Redmore, L.; Sène, A.L.; Katju, D.; Barraclough, L.; Boyd, S.; Madge, C.; Papadopoulos, A.; Yalamala, R.S. The
scope of empowerment for conservation and communities. Conserv. Biol. 2024, e14249. [CrossRef]
41. Blewitt, J. (Ed.) Community Empowerment and Sustainable Development; Green Books: Totnes, UK, 2008.
42. Nilashi, M.; Rupani, P.F.; Rupani, M.M.; Kamyab, H.; Shao, W.; Ahmadi, H.; Rashid, T.A.; Aljojo, N. Measuring sustainability
through ecological sustainability and human sustainability: A machine learning approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118162.
[CrossRef]
43. Zhao, L.Y.; Zha, Y.; Zhuang, L.; Liang, L. Data envelopment analysis for sustainability evaluation in China: Tackling the economic,
environmental, and social dimensions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 275, 1083–1095. [CrossRef]
44. EC. European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. In Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions—
A Handbook for Practitioners; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. Available online: https:
//data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/244577 (accessed on 28 May 2024).
45. Derner, J.D.; Augustine, D.J.; Briske, D.D.; Wilmer, H.; Porensky, L.M.; Fernández-Giménez, M.E.; Peck, D.E.; Ritten, J.P. Can
collaborative adaptive management improve cattle production in multipaddock grazing systems? Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 75,
1–8. [CrossRef]
46. Fabricius, C. Community-based natural resource management: Governing the commons. Water Policy 2007, 9, 83. [CrossRef]
47. O’Higgins, T.G.; Lago, M.; DeWitt, T.H. (Eds.) Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,
Tools, and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
48. Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C.D.; Jager,
N.W.; et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. COSDEP. Community Sustainable Development Empowerment Program (COSDEP): “Training Farmers to Secure Their Future”,
Nairobi, Kenya. 2022. Available online: https://www.globalgiving.org/pfil/17290/projdoc.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2023).
50. The House Project. Empowering Local Communities: Building Stronger and Sustainable Futures (Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Venezuela, India, Jordan). Available online: https://thehouseproject.foundation/blogs/blog/empowering-local-communities
(accessed on 28 May 2024).
51. Tostan. Community Empowerment Program: Dignity for All. 2024. Available online: https://tostan.org/programs/community-
empowerment-program/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
52. APP Indonesia. Desa Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program (Prosperous and Fire Free Villages, Indonesia).
Available online: https://app.co.id/sustainability/people (accessed on 12 March 2023).
53. Pasaribu, S.I.; Vanclay, F.; Zhao, Y. Challenges to implementing socially-sustainable community development in oil palm and
forestry operations in Indonesia. Land 2020, 9, 61. [CrossRef]
54. Sarjiyanto, S.; Sarwoto, S.; Darma, T.S. The sustainability of community empowerment as development strategies: The experience
of Indonesia. Int. J. Multicult. Multirelig. Underst. 2022, 9, 207–218.
55. McCalman, J.; McEwan, A.; Tsey, K.; Blackmore, E.; Bainbridge, R. Towards social sustainability: The case of the Family Wellbeing
Community Empowerment Education Program. J. Econ. Soc. Policy 2010, 13, 146–172.
56. Kemper-Koebrugge, W. Empowering rural communities. Int. J. Integr. Care 2023, 23 (Suppl. S1). [CrossRef]
57. Indow, L.; A Maturbongs, R.; Prabawardani, S.; Hendri, H.; Lyons, G. Implementation of the remote indigenous community
empowerment program on the sustainability of the local food crops in West Papua, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 5247–5254.
[CrossRef]
58. Nazuri, N.S.; Rosnon, M.R.; Salim, S.S.M.; Ahmad, M.F.; Suhaimi, S.S.A.; Safwan, N.S.Z. Promoting economic empowerment
through effective implementation and linking social capital in urban agriculture programs. J. Law Sustain. Dev. 2023, 11, e0726.
[CrossRef]
59. UNEP. EmPower: Women for Climate-Resilient Societies Program. UN Women and UNEP. 2024. Available online: https:
//www.unep.org/topics/energy/renewable-energy/empower (accessed on 28 May 2024).
60. Vidal, R.V.V. Community facilitation of problem structuring and decision-making processes: Experiences from the EU LEADER+
program. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 199, 803–810. [CrossRef]
61. LWR—Lutheran World Relief. Strengthening Local Governance for Disaster-Resilient Communities (SAKSHAM). Available
online: https://lwr.org/technical-resources/strengthening-local-governance-disaster-resilient-communities-saksham (accessed
on 12 May 2024).
62. Chang, H.C. A study on basic agricultural extension organizations involving Taiwan’s rural community empowerment program.
Community Dev. J. 2007, 120, 312–329.
63. Tsai, T.A. Strategies of building a stronger sense of community for sustainable neighborhoods: Comparing neighborhood
accessibility with community empowerment programs. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2766–2785. [CrossRef]
64. Handoko, W.; Soerjadjanegara, M.; Irawati, I.; Suwarno, S. Enhancing community participation for sustainable coastal em-
powerment: A case study of the resilient coastal area development program in Central Java. Res. Horiz. 2023, 3, 378–390.
[CrossRef]
65. Osei-Kufuor, P. Reducing poverty through community participation: The case of national poverty reduction program in the
Dangme-West Regency of Ghana. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 3, 1611–1628.
66. Béné, C.; Haque, M.A.B.M. Strengthening the resilience of vulnerable communities: Results from a quasi-experimental impact
evaluation in coastal Bangladesh. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2022, 34, 843–868. [CrossRef]
67. Empowering Women for Sustainable Coastal Management within the MedProgram. Mediterranean Coastal Zones Climate
Resilience, Water Security, and Habitat Protection. 2022. Available online: https://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/9687 (accessed on 12
March 2023).
68. UK Government. Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme. GOV.UK. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/
guidance/flood-and-coastal-resilience-innovation-programme (accessed on 29 August 2024).
69. Meo, H.L.T.; Panda, R.D. Community empowerment for environmentally sustainable tourism based on local perspectives (Case
study of Anakoli Village, Nagekeo). IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 448, 012081. [CrossRef]
70. Saidi, L.O.; Arif, K.; Taufik, Y.; Abadi, M. The empowered village community development model South Konawe Regency coastal
region (Study of the underdeveloped village of the coastal region of South Konawe Regency). Anjoro Int. J. Agric. Bus. 2020, 1,
37–44. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sustainability 16 08700 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 16 08700 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 16 08700 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198700 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

Examples of the Actions

In order to analyze and synthesize the findings from a semi-systematic review we

management, along with infrastructure support to enhance community prosperity. The

in rural communities and emphasizing environmental protection and ecological tourism.

3.2. Main Actors of the Programs: Initiators and Target Groups

In particular, those programs that defined empowerment focusing mostly on capacity

3.4.2. Types of Empowerment Identified

political empowerment since it encouraged bottom-up approaches and democratic decision-

- Rate of adoption leading to decreased dependence on external inputs (program 1)

- Production per unit area as an indicator of improved soil fertility (program 1)

- Health prevention in the community through better nutrition (number of related

- Number of grassroots initiatives established (program 3)

4.2. Empowerment and Sustainable Development/Transformation: How Are They Interlinked?

4.4. Remaining Questions and Directions for Future Research

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.