The processes of social and urban segregation have got worse during the last decades. Several studies have deepened into the analysis of the causes and consequences of

these processes and have tried to define solutions that beyond eradicating some specific problems, were aimed at the consolidation of sustainable urban environments.

This paper presents an approach to the problem of urban inequality based on the concept of urban vulnerability as something that goes beyond the social and economic problems. In exclusion processes it is very important to consider the urban context and the physical and structural conditions not only in each neighborhood but also in the city as a whole. The paper seeks to pose a reflection on the urban support, which is understood in all its complexity and thought to be a key to ensure access and the right to the city of the citizens most in need

García Madruga, Carolina

Hernández Aja, Agustín

Matesanz Parellada, Ángela

Archivo Digital UPM

The role of the urban support in the regeneration of vulnerable neighbourhoods

Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

  1
The role of the urban support in the regeneration of vulnerable 
neighbourhoods. 
 
Speakers:   
Garcia Madruga, C1, Hernández Aja, A2. 
 
1
 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, 
Spain 
2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, 
Spain 
 
Abstract: The processes of social and urban segregation have got worse during the last decades. 
Several studies have deepened into the analysis of the causes and consequences of these processes and 
have tried to define solutions that beyond eradicating some specific problems, were aimed at the 
consolidation of sustainable urban environments.  
This paper presents an approach to the problem of urban inequality based on the concept of urban 
vulnerability as something that goes beyond the social and economic problems. In exclusion processes 
it is very important to consider the urban context and the physical and structural conditions not only 
in each neighborhood but also in the city as a whole. The paper seeks to pose a reflection on the urban 
support, which is understood in all its complexity and thought to be a key to ensure access and the 
right to the city of the citizens most in need.  
Keywords: Urban vulnerability, accessibility, urban assets, urban support 
Urban vulnerability and segregation within current context 
The economic growth, that took place in Spain from the nineties till 2008, brought along huge 
economic and redistributive consequences. Always linked to a real estate risk and to the 
removal of capital from the lowest income families, this growth became into a mechanism of 
accumulation-dispossession suffered by the most disadvantaged social classes. Several 
studies, in which the socio-spatial segregation was analysed through the evolution of housing 
prices (as a proxy index for income), demonstrated the progressive and ongoing gentrification 
of certain areas of the city in contrast to the constant exclusion of the most vulnerable districts 
(1). 
Furthermore, in 2008 the 6th Report on Spanish exclusion and social development (2), 
pointed out that since the 90s the investment on social spending in relation to GDP growth 
had been reduced, from the 24.4% to the 20%. In recent decades, and more intensively 
because of the financial crisis and the continuous austerity policies, we are being witnesses of 
an accelerated dismantling of public goods and services, which suffer not only from drastic 
budget cuts but from privatization actions as well. 
These processes of capital transference and accumulation have had profound effects upon the 
city. The last Analysis of Urban Vulnerability in Spain (3) revealed that inequality and urban 
segregation did not improve during the first decade of economic boom. Instead of that, it 
  2
increased. According to this analysis, people living in vulnerable neighborhoods during the 
inter-census period 1991-2001increased by 50.2%. Comparing the analysis conducted in 1996 
(based on1991census) and the one conducted in 2011(based on2001 Census), the number of 
vulnerable neighbourhoods went from 378 to 604 in a decade. 
In cities like Barcelona or Madrid, the growth of urban vulnerability was even more 
remarkable. In the first one, the number of neighbourhoods rose from12 to 45, which 
represented an increase of 36.3% in the population living in vulnerable neighbourhoods. In 
the case of Madrid, the figures were even more striking. The number of vulnerable 
neighbourhoods grew more than doubled going from 183.531 to 605.153 of vulnerable 
people. 
  
Figure 1 Map of neighbourhoods that were defined as vulnerable according to census of 1991 and 2001in the 
cities of Barcelona and Madrid. Neighbourhoods that are shaded in blue, were included in the catalogue which 
was carried out in 2011 (from 2001 census data) and those represented in yellow line were delimited in 1996 
(according to the1991census data). 
As shown in figure 1, many of the neighbourhoods that were defined as vulnerable according 
to data from 1991 census, remained the same regarding 2001 data. Overall, social and urban 
segregation processes were found to be constant overtime in some areas among these 
neighbourhoods. Many of them are historic district, public developments from 1975 to 1990 
or peripheral allotment areas. These neighbourhoods, in which networks facilities and 
equipments are weaker, access to green areas is more difficult, are unstructured 
neighborhoods and have little relevance as a functional part of the city. Rehabilitation plans or 
programmes have been carried out in many of them and have been relatively successful in 
terms of improving part of the housing stock, but have not resulted in a comprehensive and 
sustainable improvement (urban, social, economic and environmental), which have resulted in 
a perpetuation of the socioeconomic problems. 
Moreover many of the neighbourhoods that were defined as vulnerable, according to the 
2001census data, were not vulnerable according to data from 1991. In the light of these 
results, a new group of neighbourhoods with different degrees of vulnerability were found. 
There are neighborhoods that may not necessarily be described as excluded neighborhoods, 
but in contrast may be located in a weak position compared to the rest of the city. Given these 
processes, new problems related to the lack of access to basic goods and services arose, what 
makes urgent the definition of other models of intervention for the urban reality. 
  3
The aim of this paper is to pose a reflection on the urban support as the key to ensure access 
and the right to the city of that population more in need regarding the urban vulnerability 
processes that take place in our cities. 
The interest of this discussion lies in the possibility of developing comprehensive intervention 
models for the existing city which may be able to adapt them to changing needs. This 
involves a greater involvement of subjects in determining the urban structure as a satisfactor 
element for their own needs; it “is about reconstructing the concept of need for sustainability, 
not only from the relative lack” (4). 
Vulnerability and assets. The urban support as a generator of capabilities 
The concept of vulnerability can be understood from different points of view. The sociologists 
Alguacil and Camacho understand the concept as a process of discomfort caused by the 
combination of multiple dimensions of disadvantage (social, economic, urban, etc), in which 
all hope for an upward social mobility, determined to overcome social exclusion condition or 
close to it, is regarded as extremely unattainable (5). 
The term has been frequently used as a synonymous to poverty, but it is not the same. Poverty 
is usually associated to a particular time; it is essentially a static concept, while vulnerability 
is a more dynamic concept and allows the definition of processes. From the urban point of 
view it means that the poorest and excluded neighborhoods are undoubtedly the most 
vulnerable but, in contrast, not all poor neighborhoods are vulnerable. 
From a socioeconomic point of view, each neighborhood has some capabilities that make it 
more or less strong or resilient against adverse circumstances. They may count on capabilities 
that deal with economic, social or educational qualities of individuals, households or groups. 
But beyond their capabilities, each neighborhood must have other means of resistance, 
namely assets and rights that individuals, families and communities can mobilize and manage 
to face difficulties. The more assets they count on, the lower vulnerability may be. The more 
wear they have, the greater the insecurity is towards a downward mobility process. The assets 
are generally measured in relation to household (disposable income, real estate, etc.). 
Socioeconomic variables are used to define the position of individuals, neighborhoods or 
towns within the segmentation axes Wealth - Poverty / Inclusion – Exclusion, in which 
several positions or zones can be found (see figure 2). 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Vulnerability zones through segmentation axis. 
In addition to social (human capital, education, etc.) or economic assets (access to the labor 
market, economic, etc...) and transferring the concept of asset to an urban planning 
  4
perspective, we understand that an individual, a district or a city has other elements that can 
work as urban assets and that will influence the position of each of them in the segmentation 
axis of vulnerability. We refer to all the elements that constitute and structure the city, 
empowering each area or district to meet their own needs. These elements are considered as 
'indirect social wage' (4) which we define as urban support. 
On one side, the urban support would refer to those requirements that are determined by 
planning, regarding the size and the variety of amenities and facilities so as to avoid the loss 
of functional coverage. These are all those elements that define the built environment and 
ensure the potential accessibility, which is understood as the opportunity for people to access 
goods, services or products. These requirements would be given by urban standards, physical 
structure, density, size, distances, etc; in essence all those elements that enable to define the 
area as a structured neighborhood. All of them make up the built environment and therefore 
would be required as satisfiers of needs identified in quantitative terms. However, they are not 
enough if we pretend the reconstruction of the concept of need in terms of social, 
environmental and economic sustainability.  
Thus, the concept of urban support must be understood as a complex system where. apart 
from the built environment (facilities, housing, squares, infrastructures, parks, etc), there are 
also interrelated social spaces which shape a set of spaces that serve as social and cultural 
support to which everyone should have access. This aspect of urban support is the key to 
understand that ensuring a potential accessibility does not ensure the total accessibility of 
people to their environment, just because the urban space is not guaranteed as a satisfier of 
needs inherent to Human Scale Development (6). In this theory, human needs are defined as 
an unitary system in which they relate and interact. Thus, they are considered as "the sum of 
existential needs (be, have, do and be) and axiological needs (subsistence, protection, 
affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, freedom)”. 
Accessibility and the urban support 
Access to the city in all its complexity is a perennial and a recurring theme in urban research, 
either if it is from a social, economic, anthropological or purely urban and territorial 
perspective. In every period and according to each discipline, approaches change depending 
on the problems they have to cope with. 
In order to ensure access to the city on equal terms, it must be taken into account the different 
types of open spaces and its uses, the variety and complexity of the requirements and the 
different urban scales (housing, neighbourhood, district and city) regarding possible border or 
boundary spaces between the different scales. The relationship of each neighbourhood within 
the city must be present. For that purpose, the elements that define the neighbourhood urban 
support, should contribute to avoid exclusion processes through the incorporation of each area 
or neighborhood as a structural element of the city and therefore necessary for the rest of it 
(see figure 3). 
All these spaces built or not, constitute the urban support that is intended to endow citizens, 
regardless of their physical, social, economic or cultural characteristics, with social benefits or 
collective services. These spaces also define the quality of the urban model in relation to the 
system of public spaces and facilities that were developed to serve the city.  
  5
 
Figure 3 Conceptual schemes that explain the relationship between accessibility and urban support in order to 
ensure structured and structural environment 
Accessibility shortfalls in the city imply lack of access to goods and services offered by the 
city in all areas and diminish the quality of the urban environment and people's welfare. It 
also reduces the possibility of integration in the built environment and even damages the 
environmental quality of cities. Rethinking the city through the concepts of accessibility and 
urban support allows us to reconstruct the functional nature of the urban environment so as to 
ensure quality of life by reducing the urban and social vulnerability. 
Urban Support in the context of the comprehensive regeneration of 
neighbourhoods 
As a result, it is interesting to develop a deep insight into the way precarisation of the urban 
support affects the processes of vulnerability, in order to develop appropriate indicators. 
Among the 624 neighbourhoods that were catalogued as vulnerable (3), a variety of problems 
and situations, both socioeconomic and urban, can be found. However, considering the 
results, certain patterns or similarities can be built and thus, it is possible to define the 
different levels of resilience of neighbourhoods in relation to their socio-economic 
vulnerability. All this can be established taking into account the assets and capabilities of each 
neighbourhood and their urban vulnerability which can be measured through the analysis of 
total and potential accessibility to the urban support. 
Derived from the results of the urban vulnerability analysis in Spain, it can be stated that 
indicators which measure the level of education or access to the labour market were 
  6
benchmarks for detecting situations of exclusion or disintegration. The 40% of delimited 
neighbourhoods exceeded 1.5 times the national value in relation to educational level and the 
unemployment rate, and the 60% of the neighbourhoods had a ratio of temporary workers 
above the 30%. Given these socio-economic data along with the location of these 
neighbourhoods in the city (which are generally located in periphery areas), it can be ensured 
that access to the labour market, which means access to urban support that structures 
productive uses, remains a key part of the process of urban vulnerability. 
However, it is detected that more than 50% of the 2001 delimited neighbourhoods, exceeded a 
rate of 40% of dependency. Most of them are aging neighbourhoods (more than the 50% of 
them have a 10% or more of over-65-year-old-single-person households) with their particular 
needs and strong gaps in access to urban support in its different scales. In these cases 
neighbourhoods with a relative or moderate vulnerability were found. In these cases, socio-
economic aspects did not define a pattern of exclusion but, there is a risk of social decline or 
vulnerability increase during an economic crisis like the current one. These neighbourhoods 
become more likely to generate strong problems related to relative poverty and also related to 
their integration in the city. 
 
 
Figure 4. Socio-economic and urban vulnerability zones through segmentation axis. 
In this regard, it is important to characterize the different processes of vulnerability from a 
multidimensional perspective including both socioeconomic and urban variables that can be 
adapted to each neighbourhood problems serving both the degree and the type of 
vulnerability. For this characterization, the use of the concepts described above is proposed by 
relating them in position tables (see figure 4). 
The first position table seeks to characterize the vulnerability in relation to the capabilities and 
needs of the population in order to identify major gaps or asset levels as an element of 
resistance to brittleness. Thus, four positions of socioeconomic vulnerability (Vse) are 
distinguished through the ratio of assets-capabilities. The more assets and capabilities they 
  7
count on, the lower the social vulnerability is. Similarly, in the second table four positions are 
also defined in order to characterize the urban vulnerability (Vu) in relation to the binomial 
accessibility- urban support. The better the urban support and accessibility are, the less urban 
vulnerability exists. 
Both tables are linked in order to understand in a more complex way the processes that can 
result into different levels and types of vulnerability. 
This method of analysis can produce useful and complex appraising so as to develop 
comprehensive strategies aimed at improving neighbourhoods. It is intended to keep track of a 
basic objective to be pursued any urban intervention, which would be to build an integrated 
and well-adjusted city. It is not possible to improve a vulnerable neighbourhood dismissing its 
contextual either social or urban situation. The urgent need of creating structured 
neighbourhoods with their autonomy and training must be understood along with a 
recognizable structure in its urban and metropolitan context. 
 
References 
(1) Fernández Ramírez, C; Roch Peña, F (2012). La quiebra de la ciudad global y sus efectos 
en la morfología urbana. Madrid, bajo la lógica inmobiliaria de la acumulación-desposesión. 
Urban: revista del Departmento de Urbaistica y Ordenacion del Territorio, 2012, 03(06): 45-
63, doi:10.3989/ic.11.058 
(2) VI Informe sobre exclusión y desarrollo social en España (2008). Fundación Foessa, 
Cáritas Española, 2008. 
(3) Hernández Aja, A., Vázquez Espí, M., García Madruga, C., Matesanz Parellada, A., 
Moreno García, E., Alguacil Gómez, J., Camacho Gutiérrez, J.(2011). Análisis urbanístico de 
Barrios Vulnerables. Madrid, Spain. Ciudades para un Futuro más Sostenible. Available at: 
http://habitat.aq.upm.es/bbvv/bbvv.html (accessed 1.7.13) 
 
(4) Hernández Aja, A, et al (1997). La ciudad de los ciudadanos. Madrid . Ministerio de 
Obras Públicas Transportes y MedioAmbiente.  
(5) Alguacil Gómez, J; Camacho Gutiérrez, J; Hernández Aja, A (2013). La vulnerabilidad 
urbana en España. Identificación y evolución de los barrios vulnerables. Empiria. Revista de 
metodología de Ciencias Sociales, 27(28). 45-63, doi:10.3989/ic.11.058 
(6) Max-Neef, M; Elizalde, A; Hopenhayn, M (1991). Human scale development: conception, 
application and further reflections. New York. Apex Press. 


http://oa.upm.es/33405/4/GarciaMadrugaC_SB14_P-164.pdf

The role of the urban support in the regeneration of vulnerable neighbourhoods

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivo Digital UPM

Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid