The difference between a community and a neighborhood

A simple answer to the question on the difference of “community” and “neighborhood” could be a reference to the notion of “geography” since neighborhood has a strong geographic element, however, the first and the most important element in a community are the united people (or people bound by something) that may be in close proximity (like a neighborhood) or may not be. In this case, some may add that a neighborhood is a geographical notion while it is sometimes used in a physical sense, while community is a sociological one. Some may add that in a community, people are somehow united (by a common goal or a common ground) – they might have shared activities or even group events – where the people feel a sense of belonging. Meanwhile, the neighborhood has a boundary while there might be no reference to boundaries when we are talking about communities. For instance when you are referring to a neighborhood in a street (the street acts like an official designation – which means officially the street exists), then this street is a like a boundary that defines the neighborhood.

Others may add that a community is composed of certain number of neighborhood while a neighborhood is a community. In fact, each neighborhood may be one sub-community – if a community is composed of more than one neighborhood.

There might be consideration of rural and urban communities when we are discussing about the difference about a community and a neighborhood. In urban communities, neighborhood is important to consider while in rural communities people are living in neighborhood while there might be a sense of solidarity among people, which means a community is a neighborhood too.

There are also those who believe that there is no difference between the two notions: neighborhood and community can be used interchangeably – exactly when they are refereeing to those who are living in proximity and especially when people are from one race or ethnicity.

Photo taken from the book:

Facilitation of the poverty reduction processes:

a community-based approach (2014), published in Iran in Farsi

the picture has been designed

by Maryam Mansouri (Yazd)

In certain urban projects, neighborhood gains more important while whatever you do can be call a community-based activity with a powerful neighborhood component. Recognition of this fact can be important since neighborhood may have certain implications in the work. For instance dividing the community into neighborhood blocks can be done by the people themselves and they can even find names for their neighborhood sub-community. This is especially an important part of any community-based activity in a mega city like Tehran. I have noticed that you can not facilitate a meeting on a common issue in a community where people are from different neighborhoods, while when they are from one neighborhood, then the social capital (the level of trust) increases and the discussion or any further community-based research action moves more smoothly.

In conclusion, I request my facilitator colleagues in a big city like Tehran to pay a special attention to the notion of neighborhood in their community-based activities.

Traditional Knowledge and Local Communities in favor of Biodiversity

Today (22 Nov. 2012), I attended a very exciting forum on "Conservation of Fauna and Flora" - the role of traditional knowledge and local communities" which was held by the Malaysian Academy of Science in PICC (Putrajaya). There were many presentations, but there were only three papers presented in the event that I liked very much. That's why I tried to give a very short report of these three papers in my blog. I do not know whether they can be found in the internet, but I am sure there exists certain clues for those who are interested to find out more about the role of traditional knowledge and local communities in protection of the environment.

The first paper that was presented by Professor Indraneil Das from the Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (UMS) was really informative, trying to picture how people in local communities have been involved in protection of environment through mythologies, belief systems and religion. An example is Pulong Tau National Park, Gunung Murud in Sarawak. He emphasized that the participation of the people has to be incorporated in the management plans. However, he concluded that "pragmatic conservation policies" are highly required to be considered and scientific data and regulations are needed too. Neither top-bottom nor bottom-up, linkages are more important.

Another lecturer from Penang, Dr Zulfigar Yasin, talked about the role of traditional knowledge and local communities in the conservation of coral reefs in Malaysia. He showed one slide which showed a Google satellite picture taken in the night from Malaysia that people mostly lived near the sea, and he added that most of the traditions in Malaysia are somehow related to sea. He also referred to the point that the names given to the reefs - are not new for people, since people know the reefs since years ago. He also mentioned that the people do not "compartize" the knowledge of the sea - it is a practical knowledge they use in their own life. Then he analyzed the threats to coral reefs.

The third contribution was presented by Dr Chang Yu Shyun who talked about the macrofungi used by Orang Asli for food, medicine, charms or other uses. This is important to remind that the Orang Asli communities in Malaysia use the natural resources in the forests for various purposes. She said the knowledge on mushrooms, while invaluable, are transmitted orally. She said that the researchers used a pictorial guide in visiting the villages of Orang Asli (only five tribes) - and the people told them about the mushrooms. The collected data have been categorized and studied. She showed pictures of the mushrooms and beliefs of the tribes regarding the mushrooms and their related uses. To my point of view, the research was highly important since it studies in details the local traditional knowledge on mushrooms. As it was included in the recommendations of the research, it has to be extended to other sub-tribes, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. Among the conclusions, there were issues which are important to look into, such as: "urbanization", "lack of interest of younger generation", "no replacement of knowledgeable elders", "loss of forest areas", "migration to urban areas", and "increased use of modern medicine". The researcher concludes that such use of mushrooms facilitates conservation. The results have been published in the book: Common Edible Mushrooms of Orang Asli Communities in Peninsular Malaysia written by Lee Su See, Chang Yu Shyun and Noraswati Mohd. Nor Rashid, published by Forestry Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong in 2006.