Planning for Social Cohesion: Strengthening Cultural Identity and Territorial Development – Insights from Kenya

Abstract

Kenya’s 2010 constitution introduced devolution as a transformative governance framework intended to enhance equity, public participation, territorial inclusion and grassroots engagement and visibility. Spatial and economic planning were positioned as key instruments for managing development, addressing historical inequalities, and fostering social cohesion across diverse cultural and ecological landscapes. Yet, despite a progressively articulated legal and policy architecture, spatial planning in Kenya continues to expose a persistent gap between constitutional aspirations and lived realities. Territorial planning remains largely technocratic, sectoral, and administratively constrained, with limited engagement with Indigenous and local knowledge systems, cultural identity, and socio-ecological interdependencies that transcend county boundaries. This paradox raises critical questions about the capacity of Kenya’s devolved planning system to support social cohesion in a culturally heterogeneous, socio-economically diverse and ecologically interconnected nation.

This paper explores how cultural identity can be recentred within Kenya’s territorial planning frameworks to strengthen social cohesion and enable context-responsive development. It contends that contemporary spatial planning approaches marginalise the socio-cultural dimensions of territory, treating identity as peripheral rather than foundational to spatial governance. Existing planning scholarship in Kenya largely focuses on development control, urbanisation, service delivery, and institutional reform, while offering limited empirical insight into how planning decisions shape inter-community relations, place identity, and socio-ecological resilience. Research on ecological systems such as watersheds, rangelands, and pastoral corridors remains largely sectoral, obscuring how devolved governance structures fragment landscapes historically managed through shared cultural and ecological logics.

Conceptually, the paper draws on territorial planning, participatory governance, spatial justice, cultural landscape and decolonial planning, to illustrate how post-colonial planning systems often reproduce Eurocentric spatial logics that marginalise Indigenous territorialities and relational understandings of land. In Kenya, these dynamics are reinforced by devolution, which has intensified administrative fragmentation, competitive territoriality, and misalignment between governance boundaries and socio-ecological systems. The paper therefore frames territorial planning not as a purely technical coordination exercise, but as a socio-political process through which identity, power, and belonging are negotiated.

Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative, exploratory-descriptive approach, drawing on comparative case studies across sixteen Kenyan counties with ratified County Spatial Plans. Data was generated through semi-structured interviews with planners, economists, environmental officers, policymakers, and community leaders, complemented by focus group discussions and participant observation in planning forums. These were supported by systematic analysis of County Spatial Plans, County Integrated Development Plans, sectoral strategies, and relevant national policy and legal instruments to examine institutional practices and implementation dynamics.

The findings reveal four interrelated patterns. Firstly, cultural identity and Indigenous and local knowledge systems are weakly integrated into county planning frameworks. Whereas cultural landscapes and heritage are often acknowledged rhetorically, they are seldom operationalised as organising principles for territorial governance. Secondly, devolution has inadvertently reinforced administrative silos, with counties planning infrastructure, urban expansion, and resource use largely within their jurisdictions, destabilising shared river basins, biodiversity corridors, pastoral mobility routes, and cultural landscapes. This has undermined long-standing interdependencies that historically supported ecological resilience and social cohesion.

Thirdly, institutional gaps within Kenya’s devolved planning architecture exacerbate fragmentation. The sidelining of Regional Development Authorities; originally conceived as basin-based institutions for coordinating development across major river systems and transboundary ecosystems; has weakened planning at ecologically meaningful scales. Post-2010 reforms and the omission of these authorities from key planning legislation have left them institutionally ambiguous, with jurisdictional tensions, chronic underfunding, and limited political support constraining their effectiveness. Finally, participatory innovations such as participatory GIS and community-led mapping initiatives demonstrate potential for amplifying marginalised voices. Yet, their impact remains limited in the absence of enabling policy frameworks, institutional capacity, and recognition of decentralised knowledge systems.

Building on these findings, the paper advances a conceptual contribution that positions cultural identity as critical infrastructure for social cohesion within territorial planning. It proposes an inclusive planning framework grounded in participatory governance, adaptive hybridity, and equitable resource distribution. Hybrid approaches that integrate Indigenous and local knowledge systems with formal planning tools; such as GIS, ecosystem-based management, and circular economy principles; offer pathways for reconciling ecological sustainability with cultural continuity. Realising this potential, however, requires institutional reforms capable of recognising, resourcing, and legitimising Indigenous custodianship and context-specific governance practices.

The paper concludes that addressing Kenya’s territorial planning challenges demands more than procedural participation or technical coordination. It requires reorienting planning practice toward humanising urban–rural linkages, validating cultural diversity, and enabling planning at scales aligned with socio-ecological systems rather than administrative convenience. By foregrounding the centrality of cultural identity and territorial development to social cohesion, this study contributes to broader debates on decolonial planning, spatial justice, and governance in the Global South, offering insights relevant to other devolved and post-colonial contexts grappling with the tensions between institutional reform and lived territorial realities.