Participatory Land Planning, Community Land Trusts, and Managed Retreat: Transforming Informality and Building Resilience to Flood Risk in Puerto Rico’s Caño Martín Peña

Abstract

El Caño Martín Peña (CMP), a cluster of eight historically informal neighborhoods in San Juan, Puerto Rico, faces long-standing challenges of inadequate infrastructure, persistent flooding, and displacement pressures. In response, the G8 collective—a coalition representing these communities—and the Martín Peña Canal Community Land Trust (CLT) establishment have developed a participatory planning model prioritizing resilience and housing security. This unique and exemplary model of a participatory planning case study, grounded in document analysis and participant observation, explores how the G8 and CLT have driven transformative improvements in CMP, addressing informality, mitigating flood risks, and preventing displacement. Findings highlight how community-driven governance fosters trust and enhances long-term sustainability, offering valuable insights for equitable urban development and spatial justice.

1. Introduction

Urban planning has often prioritized efficiency over equity, neglecting marginalized communities. Participatory planning, rooted in advocacy and communication, empowers residents in decision-making, aligning with Lefebvre’s “Right to the City” and Harvey’s spatial justice [1,2,3]. In climate-vulnerable areas, it ensures that managed retreat fosters resilience rather than displacement. This study examines three entities in the Martín Peña Canal, San Juan, Puerto Rico, that exemplify participatory land planning: (1) Proyecto ENLACE, a public corporation, (2) G8, a coalition of eight canal-side communities, and (3) the Martín Peña Canal Community Land Trust (CLT).

Martín Peña Canal is a 3.75-mile-long tidal channel located in the center of San Juan, Puerto Rico with a total of eight informal communities. Since the late 1930s, about 5000 people have settled in this flood-prone mangrove habitat to live near employment opportunities [4]. The 1928 San Felipe and the 1932 San Ciprián hurricanes accelerated the movement of those displaced to move into this area [5,6]. Many of its original settlers moved from rural communities—displaced from agricultural work, such as on coffee and sugar cane plantations, and in search of new manufacturing, industrial and construction work opportunities [6].

During Puerto Rico’s Operation Bootstrap industrialization program in the 1940s, low-income residents built informal housing near jobs, transit, and commerce [7]. In addition, because of urban renewal projects, many living in Old San Juan, Condado, Milla de Oro, and other areas of Santurce in San Juan were displaced by the eminent domain and ended up settling near the Caño [6].

In response to the Canal’s environmental degradation, San Juan designated the eight surrounding communities as a Special Planning District in 2002, proposing dredging the Caño. As one resident asked, ‘But for whom?’ [8]. Immediately people were concerned that a new infrastructure project that made the community better could result in their displacement, given they are in an area where there are real estate interests. To address this issue, the community leaders in each of these communities figured that they needed to create a collective, and they started to meet in 2002 [9]. In 2004, these eight communities formed Proyecto ENLACE, a public corporation ensuring that the project addressed local needs, including flooding, poor sanitation, and health risks [8]. The G8 oversees the implementation of the district’s comprehensive development and land use plan developed by ENLACE [8].

After Hurricane María in 2017, 1200 homes lost their roofs and 100 homes were destroyed [10]. In 2022, Joe Biden assigned $163 million to the Corps of Engineers for dredging, which is the “removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of lakes, rivers, harbors, and other water bodies” [11]. The work started in 2023, as shown in Figure 1. A total of 1000 families needed to be relocated because they lived along the right-of-way where the dredging and managed retreat initiatives were being planned [12].

Using $46 million of Community Development Block Grant-Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), people were given the choice of whether they would like to find another home inside within the eight communities or if they would like to move to a different location with a housing relocation voucher [13]. ENLACE came to this conclusion through a community-driven process that ensured fair treatment and sought to minimize displacement-related risks as a main goal [14]. One of the reasons for having to relocate is that the Government of Puerto Rico does not allow the elevation of homes in the floodplain [15]. However, the way this community managed its own relocation process has been more than 20 years in the making, since residents understood that they needed to organize and come up with a plan that reflected what they wanted to achieve as a collective.

This article is about how they arrived at the participatory model that won the 2016 United Nations World Habitat Award and allows a just relocation, along with life improvement for those who stay [16]. Our aim is that other researchers and decision-makers can learn from this unique and exemplary case study and implement some of the lessons learned. This case study will be helpful to those working with informal settlements in both the Global South and North, where relocation, along with massive infrastructure projects, is used to solve environmental, social and spatial justice issues, making communities more sustainable and resilient in the future.

Using document analysis (Appendix A) and participant observation, this study evaluates how these initiatives have improved housing stability, enhanced infrastructure, and facilitated socio-economic development. Furthermore, it highlights the resilience and ingenuity of the communities in navigating political and environmental challenges to achieve sustainable urban regeneration. This article aligns closely with several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those that focus on inclusive, sustainable cities, and climate resilience [17]. Figure 2 is a flowchart illustrating the structure of participatory planning along the Martín Peña Canal.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Non-Participatory Models

Rational planning, a historically significant urban planning framework, emphasizes systematic, data-driven approaches to address urban challenges [18]. Rooted in modernist ideals, rational planning prioritizes efficiency, logic, and evidence in decision-making. This approach relies on expert-driven, top-down strategies rather than participatory models [19]. This approach follows five steps—goal setting, evaluating alternatives, selecting a solution, implementation, and assessment—all still used today, with greater public participation [20]. Perhaps the only difference today is that we incorporate this participation in each one of these steps. While rational planning has shaped cities, its lack of public input has often harmed marginalized communities. Haussmann’s redesign of Paris and Robert Moses’ highway projects in New York optimized urban infrastructure but were criticized for prioritizing efficiency over social equity [21,22]. In the context of El Caño Martín Peña, rational planning was evident during the mid-20th century, when the urban renewal policies of the Government of San Juan, Puerto Rico, were implemented to modernize Puerto Rico’s areas, which were deemed as slums [23]. This approach focuses on clearing substandard housing, often equated with informal housing, to make way for formalized development projects [24]. Many of the new projects created were public housing units for low-income residents [25]. The problem is that the Urban Renewal Program, which was instituted by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1949, demolished more affordable housing units than those that, in the end, were created [26].

Although the program at first meant to carry out a one-to-one replacement, it is estimated that only one in every four units was replaced nationwide during the duration of the program (between 1949 and 1973). This means that approximately 600,000 housing units were demolished, resulting in the displacement of around 2,000,000 residents. These efforts ended up displacing thousands of families and exacerbated existing inequalities, as many residents relocated on their own without adequate support. Unlike many participatory planning initiatives that struggle to gain long-term institutional support, this case stands out for its successful integration into formal governance structures, ensuring its sustainability beyond initial grassroots mobilization. Many residents ended up in Canal communities after being in public housing, as people did not like their original environment (citing high crime) and wanted to have single-family homes, instead of living in what they felt were crowded apartments that were not their own [27]. Even when they lived in informal communities, these Canal communities saw themselves as homeowners—they valued having a place they could call their own.

Rational planning interventions often reflected a technocratic approach, prioritizing infrastructure development and land use optimization from the planners’, and not the communities’, perspective [28]. It is, then, no surprise that the approach failed to account for the socioeconomic realities of the residents. In the end, government-led urban renewal efforts, including slum clearance programs sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government and policies such as the Housing Act of 1949 (Title I), displaced thousands of families [29], leaving those who remained with inadequate infrastructure and sanitation systems.

Rational planning focuses on achieving the “greatest good for the greatest number”, rooted in utilitarianism, frequently prioritizing urban functionality over the well-being of minority groups [30]. Planning is a practical field that necessitates pragmatics as opposed to utopianism and, because of this, it is highly susceptible to the ideas of utilitarians [31]. Driven by the pragmatism required to have a home, people placed trash and debris in the wetlands to create buildable land, which contributed to significant environmental degradation. The government also played its role in promoting and filling the wetlands [32]. The technical solutions proposed at the time, such as partial dredging or infrastructure upgrades, often lacked meaningful community input, rendering them unsustainable and inequitable.

The limitations of rational planning became apparent, as these top-down strategies failed to address the “wicked problems” facing El Caño, such as entrenched poverty, informal housing, and ecological degradation [33]. These challenges required more nuanced and inclusive approaches that moved beyond the purely technical. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the community-led efforts spearheaded by the G8 coalition and the establishment of ENLACE and the CLT marked a shift toward participatory planning [34]. By involving residents in decision-making and integrating local knowledge, these initiatives countered the shortcomings of earlier rational planning models.

2.2. Participatory Models

Contrary to rational planning, participatory planning emphasizes the active involvement of communities in shaping their environments and the act of empowering marginalized groups to influence decisions that directly affect their lives [35]. This approach roots itself in the democratic ideal that those who live in a community are best positioned to identify its needs and co-develop sustainable and equitable solutions [36]. Participatory planning integrates principles of diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and collaboration—making it a vital tool for addressing structural inequities and fostering long-term community resilience [26].

Paul Davidoff’s advocacy planning, introduced in the 1960s, challenged traditional technocratic planning models by emphasizing the idea of pluralism as opposed to that of the public interest [37]. Public interest presupposes one single public, but pluralism explains that there are multiple publics or stakeholders [38]. Each public could organize and advocate for what they want. The role of the planner in this context is to help the community write a plan that reflects what they would like to advocate for. Davidoff argued that, by using this approach, planners can secure the representation of diverse community interests. Davidoff’s theory of advocacy planning could be used for any group or type of advocacy. For example, a planner could represent the needs of business owners and create a plan for them and another planner could represent the interest of homeless individuals in a different plan. This means that, in the same neighborhood, competing interests and competing plans might be found.

However, Paul Davidoff practiced his own advocacy planning to ensure that marginalized groups had a voice in urban planning processes [39]. This is why a figure like Norman Krumholz conflated the idea of advocacy planning with equity planning. However, equity planning, the term developed by Krumholz, was unique in the sense that the city government prioritized marginalized groups in decision-making, as well as in the outcome of urban development [40]. Still, Davidoff’s approach laid the groundwork for equity planning, which Norman Krumholz later advanced to explicitly redistribute resources and power toward low-income and underserved populations [37,40].

In the context of El Caño Martín Peña, advocacy planning is reflected in the work of community organizations, like the G8 coalition, which represents the voices of the eight neighborhoods surrounding the channel, through the general idea of mutual aid [16]. By uniting diverse stakeholders, the coalition has amplified community concerns, particularly regarding displacement risks and infrastructure deficits, ensuring that the planning process aligns with the residents’ aspirations for equity and justice [8,41].

Equity planning, as championed by Krumholz in the 1970s, extends advocacy planning (which calls for planners to pick their side and to create plans, not with government necessarily, but as advocates working alongside community stakeholders) by focusing on the redistribution of resources to rectify systemic inequalities from the perspective of the planners working for the city. Communicative planning emerged as a response to fragmented societies, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, mutual understanding, and consensus in urban planning. Patsy Healey and John Forester, leading figures in this paradigm, argue that planners should act as facilitators, who mediate between diverse stakeholders, building trust and fostering collaborative solutions [18,19]. Judith Innes further elaborates on this idea through her research on consensus-building and collaborative rationality, which stresses the value of inclusive dialogue in resolving complex urban challenges [42,43,44].

The participatory processes for the Martín Peña Canal embody both communicative planning and transactional planning. In transformative planning (now identified as insurgent), which was developed by Friedman in the 1990s, through sustained community engagement and mutual learning between groups of groups, such as residents, planners, and policymakers, the community has developed a shared understanding of (and, we might argue, vision for) sustainable urban regeneration. The inclusive approach has not only enhanced the quality of plans but also strengthened the community’s capacity to advocate for itself, creating a model of collaborative governance [8]. Miraftab further develops this idea through her research, articulating insurgent planning as a radical planning practice, which argues the importance of rethinking participation [45].

In the global south, particularly in the case of Sao Paulo in Brazil, where participatory planning has been institutionalized, the disadvantaged groups depend on a constant struggle, both within and outside institutional levels, to pressure the government into action [46]. In other words, citizen participation is not enough to ensure that common understanding and agreement leads to action. The same situation has been observed in the case of the G8 coalition and El Caño Martin Pena, where the residents have devoted a considerable amount of time and energy during the last two decades to pressuring the authorities, in order to uphold to the comprehensive plan [47,48,49]. John Friedmans’ radical planning theory calls for a shift in power from centralized authorities to grassroots movements [50]. The literature on the different types of participatory planning underscores the transformative potential of community-centered approaches in addressing systemic urban challenges (

Table 1. Comparison between Non-Participatory (Rational) Planning and Participatory Planning Models. Source: Created by authors.

Category	Non-Participatory (Rational) Planning	Participatory Planning
Core Principles	Efficiency, logic, technical expertise; focus on data-driven, top-down approaches.	Empowering communities, inclusive dialogue, and collaboration; focusing on local knowledge and equitable outcomes.
Decision-Making Approach	Centralized, led by urban planners or technocrats.	Decentralized, led by community stakeholders with planners as facilitators.
Goals	Modernize infrastructure, optimize land use, and improve urban functionality.	Address systemic inequalities, prevent displacement, and foster long-term community resilience.
Process	Step-based: (1) Set goals, (2) Evaluate alternatives, (3) Select an optimal solution, (4) Implement, (5) Assess outcomes.	Ongoing: Workshops, focus groups, participatory events, and collaboration between stakeholders.
Outcomes in El Caño Martín Peña	Urban renewal efforts displaced thousands of residents and degraded the channel through environmental mismanagement; limited community input led to inequitable outcomes.	G8 coalition, Fideicomiso de la Tierra (CLT) and Proyecto ENLACE ensured housing stability, environmental restoration, and long-term governance through inclusive processes.
Key Figures and Theories	Rooted in modernist ideals; influenced by figures like Hausman (Champs-Elysees Neighborhood in Paris) and Robert Moses (New York Highways).	Informed by theories such as advocacy planning (Davidoff), equity planning (Krumholz), communicative planning (Healey, Forester), and transactive and radical planning (Friedmann).
Environmental Impact	Significant degradation of wetlands and ecosystems; technical solutions failed to address root causes of flooding and contamination.	Ecological restoration through community-led efforts, including mangrove replanting, dredging, and green infrastructure projects.
Housing Impacts	Slum clearance destroyed more affordable housing than it created, exacerbating displacement and marginalization.	CLT decoupled land ownership from property value, securing tenure for 1500 families and preventing gentrification [16].
Long-Term Sustainability	Unsustainable due to lack of community buy-in and socio-economic considerations.	Sustainable due to empowered governance structures, equity-driven outcomes, and ongoing community involvement.

). These frameworks challenge the limitations of traditional top-down, rational planning models by emphasizing inclusion, equity, and the value of local knowledge.

2.3. Spatial Justice

Spatial justice is a critical theory concept from the Marxian perspective in urban planning that examines how access to space, resources, and opportunities is distributed across different social groups, based in class. French philosopher Henri Lefebvre’s The Production of Space (1974) argues that space is socially produced and contested and often reinforces existing inequalities between the working class and the owner class [51]. Lefebvre’s notion of the “right to the city” asserts that those who contribute to manufacturing production as workers should have equal agency in shaping the urban environments they inhabit. This perspective is echoed by David Harvey (2008), who emphasizes that urban planning should ensure that marginalized communities have equitable access to housing, infrastructure, and public services [3].

Additionally, scholars like Robert Bullard (2005) have emphasized the intersection of environmental justice, spatial justice, and hazards—showing that marginalized communities often bear the brunt of environmental degradation. The environmental restoration efforts in El Caño Martín Peña, including dredging the canal and reintroducing green infrastructure, are essential components of spatial justice, as they mitigate the long-standing environmental burdens disproportionately affecting residents, like flooding and threats from hurricane events. Similarly, After Shocks of Disaster (2019) argues that colonial legacies continue to shape spatial inequalities, particularly in the Global South [52]. Puerto Rico’s colonial history and its continued struggle for equitable development are reflected in the challenges faced by the communities along the canal, making the participatory planning model a vital counterbalance these historical injustices.

3. Methods

This study employs a qualitative case study approach to answer the following questions: (1) What are the socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by marginalized communities in vulnerable urban areas? (2) How have participatory planning models helped address these challenges and empowered communities to achieve sustainable development?

Table 2. Case study characteristics and their application to Martín Peña Canal research. Source: Authors.

Case Study Characteristic	Description	How It Is Reflected in This Research
Research Question	“What” (descriptive) and “How” (explanatory) research questions [53].	What are the socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by El Caño Martín Peña? How have participatory planning models helped address these challenges and empowered the community to achieve sustainable development?
Time/Space	A qualitative single-case study approach focusing on a contemporary phenomenon [53].	The study focuses on El Caño Martín Peña, a marginalized urban area in San Juan, Puerto Rico, examining events and interventions from the 1990s to the present day, including the formation of the G8 coalition and the establishment of the Community Land Trust (CLT).
Approach	Concluding a single case study, with a focus on depth and contextual understanding [53,54].	Martín Peña Canal is selected as a critical case to explore the impacts of participatory planning, offering insights into how community-led models can transform marginalized urban spaces globally.
Sources of Evidence	Multiple sources of evidence, with data converging in a triangulating fashion [53].	Evidence is gathered from participant observation and conservations with stakeholders (e.g., G8 members, residents, policymakers), document analysis (e.g., project reports, legal frameworks), and secondary sources (e.g., academic articles and news reports).
Limitations	Can produce generalizable knowledge but findings might lack scientific rigor, be prone to researcher bias, or be difficult to replicate [55].	The findings are context-specific but offer transferable lessons for other urban areas. Researcher bias is mitigated through triangulation, and the focus on a single case may limit generalizability but provide rich, in-depth insights.

outlines the methodological framework for the Martín Peña Canal case study, emphasizing the research characteristics and how they align with the goals of this study. As Yin explains, the research questions should be both descriptive and explanatory. In this case, we focus on identifying the socioeconomic and environmental challenges faced by the Martín Peña Canal and exploring how participatory planning has addressed these issues to promote sustainable development [53]. This study adopts a single case study approach to provide an in-depth analysis of a contemporary phenomenon, specifically the transformation of Martín Peña Canal from a marginalized urban area to a model of community-led planning. Stake [54] emphasizes the importance of the single case study in exploring the unique attributes and complexities of a specific instance, particularly when the case provides critical insights into broader theoretical questions.

Using Yin’s framework, the Caño Martín Peña (CMP) case presents a unique and exemplary model of participatory planning, offering critical insights into the intersection between land tenure security, community-driven governance, and environmental resilience. Unlike many participatory planning initiatives that are limited in scope or duration, CMP stands out as one of the few large-scale, community-managed land trusts within an informal settlement, demonstrating long-term land tenure security as a resilience strategy. The participatory governance model institutionalized through Proyecto ENLACE, the G8 coalition, and the Community Land Trust (CLT) has successfully embedded community engagement into policy-making processes, ensuring that decision-making remains in the hands of residents rather than external stakeholders. This continuity beyond short-term interventions sets CMP apart from conventional participatory planning efforts. Additionally, CMP’s model is particularly noteworthy because it bridges environmental restoration, housing security, and climate adaptation within an equity-driven framework, illustrating how integrated participatory planning can simultaneously address social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities. Given its holistic approach and its success in preventing displacement while enhancing resilience, the CMP case provides a valuable precedent for other marginalized communities facing similar challenges.

Multiple sources of evidence, including document analysis (Appendix A) and participant observations, ensure triangulation and credibility. While the findings may be context-specific, they offer valuable lessons for similar urban contexts globally. Recognizing the limitations of the single-case study method, such as potential researcher bias and challenges to generalizability, this research mitigates these issues through data triangulation and situating the findings within broader urban planning discourses. The table highlights how this methodological approach provides a robust foundation for exploring the transformative potential of participatory planning in urban regeneration.

Flyvbjerg argues that single case studies can produce generalizable knowledge when they are strategically chosen as critical, extreme, or paradigmatic examples [55]. This methodology is particularly effective in examining sociopolitical and environmental phenomena, as it enables researchers to analyze interconnected processes, stakeholder dynamics, and context-specific outcomes [53,54]. The methodology is well-suited for the study of El Caño Martín Peña, where a comprehensive understanding of the participatory planning processes and their socio-economic and ecological impacts requires a focused, context-driven analysis.

3.1. Participant Observation and Conversations

Author 2 served as an AmeriCorps VISTA member at Proyecto ENLACE Martín Peña Canal (July 2016–November 2017), advancing participatory planning efforts in housing rights, disaster relief, and community engagement. She developed workshops, facilitated the Community Reallocation Committee, co-managed Raíces del Caño, and coordinated Universidad del Barrio. Through participant observation, she gained firsthand insights into housing, land tenure, and environmental risks. Informal conversations with residents, planners, and policymakers enriched her understanding of grassroots urban regeneration. In March 2023, Author 1 conducted a formal interview on post-María recovery, supported by IRB approval from the University of Utah (00155027).

3.2. Analysis

We analyzed the reports using a systematic approach of content extraction, interpretation, and synthesis. First, we identified key themes, like “land trust”, “participatory planning”, “housing”, and “equity”, focusing on executive summaries, methodologies, and conclusions. We then contextualized the findings within urban planning frameworks, prioritizing data related to Puerto Rico and El Caño. Finally, we synthesized the information into literature reviews, tables, and summaries, ensuring accuracy through citations and highlighting any gaps. This method provided a clear and relevant analysis for our research.

3.3. Limitations

While the case study approach provides an in-depth understanding, its findings may not be directly generalized to other contexts. Additionally, reliance on qualitative data introduces subjectivity, particularly in interpreting participant perspectives. Efforts were made to mitigate these limitations by triangulating data sources and maintaining transparency in the analysis process.

4. Case Study Findings

The questions that this case study seeks to answer are as follows: (1) What are the socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by marginalized communities in vulnerable urban areas? (2) How have participatory planning models helped address these challenges and empowered communities to achieve sustainable development? The sections titled Location, History, and Demographics answer the first question, which is descriptive. Meanwhile, the second question is answered by the final two sections.

4.1. Location

The history of Martín Peña Canal reveals a trajectory of struggle, resilience, and innovative solutions to longstanding socio-environmental challenges. El Caño Martín Peña, a tidal channel spanning 3.75 miles, is a vital yet historically neglected part of San Juan, Puerto Rico [56]. It is surrounded by eight neighborhoods collectively known as the Martín Peña Special Planning District: Barrio Obrero Oeste, Barrio Obrero, San Ciprián, Parada 27, Buena Vista Santurce, Las Monjas, Buena Vista Hato Rey, and Israel–Bitumul (Figure 3).

Martín Peña Canal links the San José Lagoon to the San Juan Bay Estuary. The San Juan Estuary, with lagoons, wetlands, and mangroves, is a vital part of Puerto Rico’s water–land ecosystem. This area is home to several marine species, such as manatees, which are a highly engendered species in Puerto Rico but, due to urbanization, their populations have been affected. The channel is in the center of the San Juan metropolitan area and is near the central business district and other important transportation nodes, including seaports and airports. This location highlights how it is well positioned for urban links and economic development [32,41]. This contradiction between a strategic location and social exclusion demonstrates Martín Peña Canal as both a neglected area and a project for change from below in terms of planning and governance [41].

4.2. History

Figure 4 shows a timeline for Caño Martín Peña. These communities, established during the 20th century due to waves of rural–urban migration, reflect a pattern of filling in land consisting of debris, trash, and dirt to construct homes along mangrove wetlands, spurred by limited access to formal housing and infrastructure [56,57]. It was believed that the mosquitos that gave malaria to people were associated with the stagnant waters of the Caño so, as the government demolished areas due to urban renewal, it would use the debris and trash to cover the waters of the Caño [6].

During this time, marginalization began, because disease was associated with the areas [6]. Along the Caño, as in many places around the world, the water was used for multiple purposes—fishing, bathing, drinking, and even defecating—leading to severe environmental degradation and public health challenges [6]. These informal settlements grew rapidly, and by the 1950s much of the wetlands were filled in. Figure 5 shows a 1936 aerial photograph of the Martín Peña Canal, showcasing extensive mangrove swamps, approximately 250 feet wide, that once lined the channel. In contrast, an aerial view from the 2000s reveals that nearly all the mangrove swamps have been filled in, drastically narrowing the canal. This expansion resulted in dense neighborhoods but also caused significant environmental degradation, including the obstruction of the tidal channel and severe flooding issues.

Using a highly rational planning model, where the planner as a technical agent tries to solve problems with little or tokenistic public input, by the 1960s the urban renewal programs led by the government aimed at erasing slum areas and transferring thousands of people to new residential zones [58]. However, most of the remaining neighborhoods were left with poor sewage systems, thus compounding the social and environmental problems [59]. Such conditions were extant until the 1990s, with untreated water sewage leading to the extremely poor water quality of the channel and its surroundings [23].

The challenges that beset the communities of Martín Peña Canal were addressed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which proved to be a significant shift for the eight neighborhoods surrounding the channel [23]. In 2001, the government of San Juan partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to launch an ambitious project aimed at dredging the canal and restoring its water flow [4]. At first, residents were scared of this infrastructure project, as they thought it would result in their displacement. There was a lack of trust in the government. In 2002, residents started to organize and come up with solutions [9]. They started to group together and, finally, in 2004, formed the G8 coalition made up of eight neighborhoods surrounding the channel [9].

The Puerto Rican government institutionalized these efforts in 2004 with the passage of Law 489, which formalized the ENLACE Project Corporation to manage environmental restoration and community development initiatives [60]. At the same time, this decade also saw significant strides in participatory planning, where residents directly had a say in infrastructure improvements, housing policies, and social services.

In a way, we can say that these participatory practices proved to be helpful when disaster struck, like when Hurricanes Irma and María in 2017 devastated much of Puerto Rico. Despite widespread damage, the community’s resilience, bolstered by the CLT and participatory governance structures, allowed for more coordinated and effective recovery efforts compared to other areas in San Juan and Puerto Rico. These achievements earned international recognition, including the prestigious United Nations World Habitat Award in 2016 [16].

4.3. Demographics

The area is home to approximately 10,997 residents [61]. There has been a significant decrease in the population living in this area since 2010. The population used to be approximately between 15,693 and 18,103 residents [62]. This population decrease may be linked to a variety of factors and is not limited to the demographics presented in

Table 3. Key Demographics. Source: Created by authors.

Demographic Indicator	Caño Martín Peña’s Communities	San Juan	Puerto Rico	Source/Year
Population	10,997	342,259	3,285,874	(El Nuevo Día, 2023); U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
Median Household Income	$17,817	$26,981	$25,096	American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2023)
Poverty Rate	61.1%	36.1%	38.2%	American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates U.S. (2023)
Unemployment Rate	22.8%	14.5%	12.1%	American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates U.S. (2023)
Median Age	48.7	45.1	45.2	U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
Percent Over 65 Years Old	24.3%	22.8%	22.3%	U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
Life Expectancy	N/A	N/A	80.86 years	United Nations—World Population Prospects (2024)
Educational Attainment (High School or Equivalent)	3325	61,160	750,934	American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates U.S. (2023)
Housing Units	6946	193,244	1,598,159	U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
Renters	2563	75,020	399,879	U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
Owners	2619	82,333	940,655	U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
Median Home Value with Mortgage (owner-occupied units)	$116,400	$181,200	$149,200	American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates U.S. (2023)
Median Home Value without Mortgage (owner-occupied units)	$100,400	$161,900	$110,900	American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2023)
Percentage of Households with Access to Basic Services (access to potable water, sanitation, electricity, etc.)	50% do not have sanitary service	N/A	250,000 people in Puerto Rico without basic access to safe drinking water and sanitation	El Nuevo Día, (2023); Dig Deep and US Water Alliance, (2019); Proyecto ENLACE/Local Surveys
Percentage of Population Living in Informal Housing	100% in the past but now 16.51% is part of the CLT	N/A	Approx. 55%	Proyecto ENLACE/Local Surveys; U.S. Census Bureau (2020); Puerto Rico Builders Association (2022)

. For instance, community leaders have reported issues related to governmental discrimination and constant stigmatization of the community surrounding the Caño [6]. In addition to this, the Caño Martín Peña’s communities have been living through a constant state of disaster that threatens the quality of life of thousands of residents. Table 3 shows a comparison of demographics for Caño Martín Peña, San Juan, and Puerto Rico. The median household’s income in Caño Martín Peña is $17,817, compared to San Juan’s $26,981, and Puerto Rico’s $25,096. The neighborhoods bordering the Caño are among the most economically disadvantaged in Puerto Rico, with over 61% of households living below the poverty line and facing high unemployment rates of 22.8% Contrary to other key demographics, in the Caño 33.69% of people have only obtained a High School Diploma compared to 21.44% and 27.70% in San Juan and Puerto Rico. The median age is 48.7 and over 2673 people are over 65 years old in our community of interest. However, according to the American Community Survey, people over 25 years old with a High School Diploma living under the poverty rate is 68.6% higher when compared to the 55% and 46% in San Juan and Puerto Rico [63].

There is a total of 6946 housing units in Caño Martín Peña. The total of owners living in the Caño is 2619, while renters are approximately 2563. Before the establishment of the Fideicomiso de la Tierra (CLT), most of the residents lacked a clear title, compared to approximately 55% of households in Puerto Rico. Currently, 2000 families (around 16.51%) share a collective clear title [62,64]. The median home value of those with a mortgage is $116,400 compared to $181,200 and $149,200 in San Juan and Puerto Rico. Meanwhile, the median home value of those without a mortgage is lower than those with a mortgage ($100,400) in our community of interest. The median home value in the surrounding area is higher by $61,500 in San Juan. However, in the case of Puerto Rico, the median home value is $110,900, representing only a slight difference between the Caño and Puerto Rico as a whole. The higher home values between the Caño and the surrounding areas could represent the threat of displacement. Unfortunately, surrounding informal communities that used to share similar characteristics to the Caño were forcibly displaced to prioritize higher-cost housing initiatives for middle and upper-income families [65].

Some of the communities still lack infrastructure for basic services, such as sewer and stormwater systems. This has resulted in widespread issues, including raw sewage discharge, frequent flooding, and the accumulation of debris, which has severely degraded the ecosystem of the tidal channel [8,32,66].

4.4. Before and After Community Organizing

Table 4. Comparative Analysis of Conditions Before and After Community Organizing in El Caño Martín Peña.

Category	1990 (Before G8)	2010 (After G8 Formation)	2024 (Current)
Land Tenure	Informal; high risk of displacement	Regularized for 1500 families (CLT)	1000 families who needed to move (inside or outside of the CLT, to allow for dredging) continue to prevent displacement
Housing Condition	Precarious; informal structures	Improved housing with repairs and upgrades	Further improvements, long-term stability
Flooding Frequency	Frequent (70% of areas affected)	Reduced through initial infrastructure	Significantly reduced due to dredging
Sewage Infrastructure	Poor; untreated sewage flows into the channel	Initial upgrades, some sanitation facilities	Expanded sewer system and improved sanitation
Water Quality	Severely degraded, highly polluted	Moderate improvements in post-participatory projects	Improved but challenges persist
Community Engagement	Minimal or token participation	G8 established; 700+ participatory events	Continued active governance by G8
Environmental Condition	Mangroves severely degraded	Restoration efforts started	Replanted mangroves and restored biodiversity
Disaster Preparedness	Minimal	Framework established post-G8 formation	Tested successfully during hurricanes

shows a comparative analysis of conditions before and after community organizing in El Caño Martín Peña. Before the formation of Proyecto ENLACE, G8, and the CLT, these informal settlements were more acutely characterized by overcrowding and precarious living conditions [4]. The physical and environmental challenges facing these communities have been compounded by systemic neglect. Historically viewed as a barrier to urban development rather than an integral part of San Juan, the Caño and its adjacent neighborhoods were excluded from formal urban planning processes. This marginalization left the residents to confront not only the environmental consequences of unplanned urban growth but also the social stigmas associated with informal settlements [8,41,57].

The area is susceptible to flooding as, when the area is blocked, it is filled with debris. When there are storms or hurricanes, like Hurricane Maria in 2017, this results in additional debris, blockage and flooding. This causes water to enter people’s homes, exposing them to health complications, such as mold, which causes respiratory issues, gastrointestinal diseases related to water contamination, and mosquito-borne diseases.

Despite these adversities, the residents of Martín Peña Canal have demonstrated remarkable resilience and solidarity. Their collective efforts have given rise to innovative initiatives, such as the Proyecto ENLACE and the CLT, which aim to address longstanding issues of land tenure insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, and environmental degradation [23].

These community-driven organizations have fostered a participatory approach to urban planning, enabling residents to advocate for their rights and lead transformative changes in their neighborhoods [8,41,64]. The Caño Martín Peña Comprehensive Infrastructure Master Plan (CIMP) was developed in 2004 to meet the challenges of flooding and other environmental and social justice issues [67]. The plan is to carry out infrastructure redevelopment, improve water quality, and create new housing and climate adaptation measures.

This context of persistent marginalization, coupled with grassroots resilience, provides the backdrop for understanding how participatory land planning initiatives have evolved to empower the community and address systemic inequities in El Caño Martín Peña. The challenges faced and the solutions developed in this community serve as a compelling case for exploring equitable and inclusive urban regeneration practices [8,32,64].

4.5. Transformative Strategies

The transformation of Martín Peña Canal from a marginalized and environmentally degraded area into a globally recognized model for community-led resilience underscores the tangible impact of participatory planning. This section critically examines the specific mechanisms through which community-driven strategies have contributed to urban resilience, focusing on housing stability, governance, environmental restoration, socio-economic development, policy advocacy, and managed retreat.

Unlike top-down, technocratic interventions, which often neglect local contexts, participatory planning in Martín Peña Canal have ensured that resilience-building efforts were grounded in lived experiences and community priorities. By integrating resident-led decision-making with technical expertise, these initiatives addressed both immediate vulnerabilities and long-term sustainability. Resilience in this context is not merely about infrastructural improvements but about fortifying social, economic, and political structures to withstand future environmental and socio-economic shocks.

One of the key factors in this transformation was the Community Land Trust (CLT), which prevented displacement while securing affordable, climate-adaptive housing solutions for residents. By decoupling land ownership from property value, the CLT stabilized the community against speculative real estate pressures, a critical factor in long-term resilience. This model not only ensured tenure security but also established a governance framework that enabled proactive environmental risk management.

Furthermore, participatory planning facilitated infrastructure resilience by incorporating local knowledge into flood mitigation strategies. Unlike previous flood control projects that displaced vulnerable populations, the dredging and sanitation improvements in Martín Peña Canal were co-designed with residents, ensuring equitable access to resources and minimizing harm. These efforts highlight how participatory planning fosters context-sensitive climate adaptation rather than externally imposed solutions.

Beyond physical infrastructure, resilience was reinforced through capacity-building programs and governance structures, such as the G8 coalition. These initiatives empowered residents with political agency, allowing them to advocate for policy protections, secure funding, and influence urban development decisions. This political empowerment is a fundamental aspect of resilience, as it enables communities to continuously adapt to evolving socio-environmental conditions rather than relying on static interventions.

Policy advocacy also played a crucial role in institutionalizing resilience within the legal and regulatory frameworks of Puerto Rico. Through sustained community mobilization, residents successfully lobbied for legislative protections that reinforced land tenure security and environmental conservation efforts. This illustrates how participatory planning not only produces site-specific solutions but also reshapes broader urban governance structures to support long-term resilience.

Finally, managed retreat in Martín Peña Canal differed significantly from conventional relocation strategies, which often result in social fragmentation. Instead of forced displacement, residents were actively involved in relocation planning, ensuring that those affected by environmental risks had viable alternatives within the community. This participatory approach mitigated the psychological and economic disruptions commonly associated with displacement, reinforcing social cohesion as a key dimension of resilience.

5. Discussion

The research questions posed in this study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What are the socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by marginalized communities in vulnerable urban areas? (2) How have participatory planning models helped address these challenges and empowered communities to achieve sustainable development? This discussion synthesizes the findings considering the research questions and the literature review, emphasizing the insights gained from this case study about public participation as a tool for addressing historical spatial/social inequities, mitigating environmental risks, and fostering long-term resilience.

5.1. Addressing Socioeconomic and Environmental Challenges

The challenges in Martín Peña Canal were multifaceted, stemming from decades of marginalization, environmental degradation, and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Residents lacked access to basic services, such as potable water, sewage infrastructure, and flood protection, reinforcing cycles of poverty and vulnerability. Historically excluded from formal planning processes, the community faced precarious living conditions, frequent flooding, poor sanitation, and health risks exacerbated by climate-related hazards.

The introduction of participatory planning models transformed this context by enabling residents to address these challenges collaboratively. Through community-driven initiatives, like Proyecto ENLACE, G8, and the CLT, long-standing issues, such as land tenure insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, and environmental risks, were tackled comprehensively. What sets this case apart is its holistic integration of land tenure security, environmental justice, and participatory governance, demonstrating a rare example of a community-led planning model successfully institutionalized within formal policy structures. Unlike other CLTs, which often operate at smaller scales or face political resistance, Martín Peña Canal’s model has gained legal and governmental support, ensuring its sustainability over time.

The CLT’s innovative approach to land management emerged as a pivotal solution to housing instability. By regularizing land tenure for 2000 low-income families, the CLT not only secured housing rights but also established a governance framework that prevented speculative displacement. This ensured that land value increases resulting from infrastructural improvements benefitted the community rather than external investors. These outcomes align with advocacy and social justice planning principles, which prioritize addressing systemic and spatial inequities through community involvement and resource redistribution. Scientific evidence supports these improvements:

• Land Tenure Stability: Post-implementation, displacement rates significantly declined, with over 80% of families retaining their homes within the CLT framework.
• Flood Mitigation: Prior to intervention, 70% of the area experienced recurrent flooding. Infrastructure projects, including dredging and stormwater management, have since reduced flood incidents.
• Economic Empowerment: Community-led vocational training and micro-enterprises have bolstered employment opportunities, reducing economic vulnerability [12,68].

5.2. Advancing Participatory Planning and Governance

The participatory governance model implemented by the G8 coalition exemplifies the principles of communicative and equity planning. Instead of relying on purely technical expertise, residents became active agents in decision-making, co-developing policies and strategies alongside planners and policymakers. Over 700 participatory events empowered residents to influence decisions, ensuring that infrastructure projects and policies aligned with community needs.

This model not only fostered a sense of ownership but also strengthened social cohesion, as residents united around shared goals. A key strength of this approach was its inclusivity; women, youth, and historically marginalized groups actively participated in leadership roles, breaking traditional barriers to political engagement. The inclusion of women in leadership roles within the G8 was particularly significant, highlighting how participatory planning can amplify marginalized voices and prioritize equity.

In contrast to the technocratic approaches of rational planning, which often excluded local perspectives, the collaborative governance structures in Martín Peña Canal demonstrated how inclusive dialogue and consensus-building can achieve sustainable outcomes and spatial justice. The case underscores the value of empowering communities as active agents in urban regeneration, bridging the gap between technical expertise and local knowledge.

5.3. Insights into Public Participation from the Literature

The literature review highlighted the limitations of rational planning and the strengths of participatory models. The transition in Martín Peña Canal’s urban governance—from top-down renewal efforts to grassroots-driven initiatives—aligns with critiques of non-participatory frameworks and right-to-the-city movements. Several key planning theories are reflected in this case:

• Advocacy Planning (Davidoff, 1965): The G8 coalition acted as an advocacy group amplifying residents’ concerns about displacement and environmental risks.
• Equity Planning (Krumholz, 1982): The CLT directly redistributed land and housing resources to ensure long-term affordability.
• Communicative Planning (Forester, 1989): Sustained engagement with local knowledge strengthened planning outcomes.
• Radical Planning (Friedmann, 1987): The grassroots activism behind the CLT exemplifies bottom-up planning that directly challenges systemic inequities.

This case study offers a tangible demonstration of how these planning theories can transition from academic discourse into institutionalized urban policy, providing valuable lessons for global urban planning.

5.4. Broader Implications for Managed Retreat and Sustainable Development

The managed retreat efforts in Martín Peña Canal provide a replicable framework for integrating public participation into urban resilience planning. Key takeaways include:

• Transparent communication: Open dialogue with residents mitigated concerns and fostered trust.
• Community involvement: Residents played an active role in shaping the relocation and infrastructure process.
• Equitable resource allocation: The prioritization of local needs ensured fair distribution of resources and minimized forced displacement.

Despite challenges, such as securing funding and navigating bureaucratic complexities, the participatory nature of this initiative fostered resilience among stakeholders. Unlike conventional relocation programs that often result in social fragmentation, this model-maintained community cohesion and strengthened governance structures.

This case study contributes to global discussions on sustainable urban development by demonstrating how formalizing participatory governance within legal and policy frameworks can ensure long-term community stability despite external pressures. Planners and policymakers should prioritize inclusive engagement, recognizing the expertise and agency of local communities in shaping their urban futures.

6. Conclusions

The case of Martín Peña Canal illustrates the transformative potential of participatory planning in addressing socio-economic vulnerabilities, environmental degradation, systemic marginalization and spatial inequalities. By centering community voices and fostering collaborative governance structures, initiatives like Proyecto ENLACE, G8, and the Community Land Trust have empowered residents to take control of their urban future. These efforts have not only regularized land tenure and improved housing stability but also catalyzed infrastructure and environmental improvements that enhance quality of life. The resilience demonstrated by the community underscores the importance of grassroots leadership and sustained public engagement in achieving equitable urban regeneration, offering a replicable model for participatory governance in other vulnerable urban areas.

This study reinforces the critical role of participatory planning as an antidote to the limitations of traditional, top-down approaches. The inclusion of residents in decision-making processes exemplifies how advocacy and communicative planning principles can bridge the gap between technical expertise and local knowledge. By addressing issues such as displacement, gentrification, and environmental risks through inclusive frameworks, the initiatives in Martín Peña Canal align with equity-focused planning theories and demonstrate how these principles can be operationalized. What makes this case particularly compelling is that it not only mitigates displacement but also establishes a legally protected model of land tenure that can resist external market pressures—something rarely achieved at this scale. The success of these efforts provides a compelling argument for planners and policymakers to prioritize participatory frameworks, especially in marginalized communities facing complex challenges.

Looking forward, the insights gained from this case study have broader implications for urban planning and policy. As climate change and urbanization continue to intensify socio-environmental challenges globally, the lessons from Martín Peña Canal offer a roadmap for integrating resilience, sustainability, and equity into planning practices. Planners must adopt approaches that center the lived experiences of communities, fostering trust and co-ownership in the planning process. More importantly, this case demonstrates that participatory planning is not just an idealistic approach but a viable, institutionalized strategy that can be replicated in other contexts facing similar socio-environmental pressures. By doing so, they can not only address immediate challenges but also build the foundations for inclusive and sustainable urban futures. This case serves as a powerful testament to the ability of participatory planning to achieve not just community engagement, but actual policy transformation, setting a precedent for other cities grappling with urban inequities. This case study reinforces that meaningful participation is not just about engaging residents in consultations but about embedding community leadership in governance structures.