Humanitarian response to urban crises: a review of area-based approaches
This paper examines the growing use of area-based approaches in humanitarian responses to urban crises and explores their relevance for increasingly complex urban environments. Published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) as part of the Urban Crises Learning Fund, the study reviews existing literature and operational experiences to identify how humanitarian agencies are adapting their strategies to address the challenges presented by rapid urbanization, displacement, disasters, and conflict in cities.
Drawing on case studies from Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, and the Philippines, the paper analyzes how area-based approaches are being applied in practice. It concludes that these approaches share three defining characteristics: they are geographically targeted, multi-sectoral, and participatory. Rather than focusing solely on individual beneficiaries or single sectors, area-based approaches seek to address the interconnected needs of entire neighborhoods or communities by combining interventions across areas such as shelter, infrastructure, livelihoods, water and sanitation, governance, and social cohesion.
The report highlights that traditional humanitarian models, often designed for rural settings or camp-based responses, can struggle to address the complexity of urban environments. Cities are shaped by intricate social, economic, institutional, and physical systems, requiring humanitarian actors to collaborate more closely with local governments, civil society organizations, private-sector stakeholders, and affected communities. Area-based approaches are presented as a way to improve coordination, strengthen local partnerships, and support more integrated and context-sensitive responses.
The paper examines both the advantages and the limitations of adopting area-based approaches. Potential benefits include improved social cohesion, stronger relationships between communities and local authorities, more efficient use of resources, reduced duplication of efforts, and greater opportunities to support long-term recovery and resilience. At the same time, the authors note risks such as creating inequalities between targeted and non-targeted areas, disconnecting neighborhood-level interventions from broader citywide strategies, increasing implementation costs, and requiring longer timeframes and more complex management structures.
Based on lessons from humanitarian and development practice, the report identifies several factors that contribute to effective area-based programming. These include clearly defining programme objectives and boundaries, ensuring meaningful community participation, engaging local authorities and stakeholders from the outset, linking neighborhood-level interventions to wider urban policies and plans, maintaining flexibility in programme design, and demonstrating early results to build trust and sustain community engagement.
The authors conclude that area-based approaches are neither inherently successful nor unsuccessful; their effectiveness depends on the context, design, implementation, and appropriateness of their application. The paper calls for additional research to better understand when and how these approaches should be used, how they compare with alternative strategies, and what changes may be needed within humanitarian coordination and funding systems to support more effective responses in urban settings. As urban crises become more common and complex, the study provides an important contribution to ongoing discussions about the future of humanitarian action in cities.
Source: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Urban Crises Working Paper, July 2015.