Exploring Informal and Formal Governance Linkages for Climate Adaptation in African Cities: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Abstract

Communities living in informal settlements face significant challenges, including poor housing, limited access to basic services and increased exposure to climate risks such as floods and heatwaves. Collaboration and public participation are increasingly recognised as critical for effective climate governance. However, the extent to which people living or working in informal settlements are meaningfully included in these efforts remains unclear. This study presents a systematic review of 25 peer-reviewed articles that met our inclusion criteria from 281 studies (published 2010–2025) using the PRISMA framework to examine how informal actors are integrated into climate adaptation planning in African cities. The findings highlight approaches such as citizen science, digital storytelling, asset-based community development, inclusive infrastructure upgrading and inclusive governance processes, which can empower informal settlement residents. However, challenges persist in implementing these approaches and in influencing decision-making beyond implementation phases, which include power imbalances, lack of secure tenure for actors living in informal settlements, and limited access to formal governance spaces. Based on these findings, the study proposes approaches that can improve the participation of local-level actors in climate governance towards inclusive and climate-resilient African cities.

Introduction

Rapid urbanisation has driven the proliferation of informal settlements, which characterise many cities in the global South, where more than half of the population call these settlements home (Brown-Luthango & Arendse, 2022; Cobbinah, 2023). Critical challenges in informal settlements include poor housing, basic services and limited employment. Together, rapid urbanisation and escalating climate impacts like water scarcity, heatwaves and flooding exacerbate these challenges in cities, increasing the burden on already vulnerable populations (Cobbinah, 2023; Satterthwaite et al., 2020).

Human health and well-being are increasingly at risk, threatening to halt or reverse decades of progress in vulnerable communities. Urgent, effective, equitable and sustainable adaptation interventions are needed. Addressing inadequate infrastructure, socio-economic exclusion and climate risks requires inclusive collaboration among diverse actors. While all urban residents feel the effects of these issues, informal settlement dwellers bear the brunt, yet remain marginalised and/or underrepresented in adaptation planning (Brown et al., 2014; Schofield & Gubbels, 2019).

This systematic review examines the inclusion of informal settlements and/or informal governance in climate adaptation planning in African cities. The study aims to answer the following research questions:

In what ways and to what extent has informal governance been integrated into climate adaptation planning across African cities?

What challenges do cities face in ensuring meaningful informal–formal integration in climate adaptation planning?

We conclude by synthesising key insights for integrating informal governance into climate adaptation efforts towards sustainable urban governance. This study contributes to the global efforts to reduce inequalities and enhance the resilience of urban health in the context of a changing climate.

Rationale

Informal settlements and broader urban informality present a critical fabric for the development of context-specific, adaptive and innovative responses to climate challenges (Collado & Wang, 2020; Parvin et al., 2023). Informal governance structures and actors rooted in community networks and lived experiences are proving effective in navigating complex risks and building resilience (Parvin et al., 2023). These actors complement formal systems, helping address critical gaps and tailor strategies to local realities. As such, African cities are progressively engaging in climate adaptation planning, using collaborative and inclusive governance, which is becoming increasingly important (Desportes et al., 2016; Wijesinghe & Thorn, 2021). This shift reflects a critical departure from the traditional notion of government as the main change agent, stressing the growing recognition of governance as a collective responsibility. Herein, collaborative governance is conceptualised as a combination of formal and informal processes and/or actors working together towards shared goals like climate adaptation and resilience-building that foster improved human health and well-being (Emerson, 2018).

Despite growing recognition of the importance of collaborative and inclusive governance for effective climate adaptation, particularly in urban informal settlements in African cities (Cobbinah & Finn, 2023), it remains unclear how, and to what extent, informal governance actors are incorporated into formal climate planning processes (Bayala et al., 2024; Dobson et al., 2015). By addressing this gap, the study provides innovative insights and actionable strategies to foster inclusive, equitable and resilient urban governance in a changing climate.

Theoretical Framework

This study adapts Baud et al.’s (2021) urban governance configuration framework (UGCF), which conceptualises governance as the interplay between actors, discourses, power relations, policies, materialities and decision-making processes that shape responses to urban challenges like climate risks and health vulnerabilities (Baud et al., 2021). These configurations refer to institutional arrangements and interactions that influence how cities respond to such complex challenges, often with direct implications for human health and well-being (Baud et al., 2021; Scott & Gilson, 2017).

UGCF is used to explore how cities are governed by revealing interactions between the formal actors (e.g., government) and informal actors (informal settlements’ residents/community groups) in complex and unequal decision-making processes. This review examines governance as a process shaped by actors, their discourses and decision-making practices to see how informal actors have been engaged in adaptation planning (Figure 1). The framework provides a lens through which to examine how power asymmetries and dominant narratives around (in)formality and vulnerability shape governance processes and adaptation pathways, often reinforcing exclusion (Baud et al., 2021).

Figure 1.

Conceptual Diagram of the UGCF, Developed by Authors Based on Selected Elements in Baud et al. (2021).

The framework informed the development of content variables used in this review, which included informal actors and their engagement in adaptation planning. Besides supporting data organisation, the framework provided an analytical lens for interpreting the findings and reflecting on the governance practices and constraints shaping inclusive climate action in African cities.

Materials and Methods

This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This structured approach to synthesising empirical evidence from research assesses the state of knowledge on specific topics (Williams et al., 2018). A search on four databases (Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed and Google Scholar), selection and examination of original articles was conducted (Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). The three-stage screening process (Figure 2) was conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third resolving any differences in cases of non-consensus. Elements of the UGCF, particularly decision-making (understood as informal actors’ integration in formal climate adaptation planning), aided the inclusion of studies and informed the development of content variables (Baud et al., 2021). The framework’s operationalisation enabled structured data extraction, and analysis focused on the interactions between formal and informal actors in climate adaptation governance.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors (2025) and Moher et al. (2009).

Information Sources and Search Strategy

Four authors manually searched databases (identified above) for records published between 2010 and 2025. The search used terms relating to informal actors and/or governance and formal climate adaptation and/or climate-health resilience within urban Africa (Figure 3). This process was consistently applied across all databases, identifying 281 articles published in English.

Figure 3.

Source: Authors.

Selection Process

Inclusion/exclusion criteria were developed before the screening process (Table 1). After removing 23 duplicate articles, two authors screened 281 abstracts, and a total of 74 articles were selected for full-text screening. Thereafter, these articles were assessed for relevance, and a total of 25 articles were selected for inclusion in this review.

Table 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Applied to this Review.

Selection Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Article type	Primary peer-reviewed research articles from indexed journals.	Articles that did not meet the criteria, including those on top-down governance without community involvement.
Language	Articles written in English.
Year of publication	1 January 2010 to 28 February 2025.
Countries/specific areas	African cities/urban Africa; informal settlements/slums.
Target population/groups/structures	Residents of informal settlements/informal actors/vulnerable groups/community leaders.
Scope	Articles covering the involvement of informal actors/informal governance structures in climate adaptation planning/environmental governance/climate and health governance, and the challenges/barriers to their involvement.

Source: Authors.

Quality Assessment

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklist was used to evaluate articles for credibility, reliability and validity (Long et al., 2020). The criteria included the clarity of the research aim, the appropriateness of the methodology and research design, the rigour of the data collection and analysis methods and the validity of the findings. Papers that met the minimum quality threshold were included. This ensured that the review’s findings were based on high-quality and well-documented evidence. The Appendix provides a synopsis of evaluated studies.

Data Extraction and Analysis

A structured data extraction form on Google Sheets ensured a systematic and consistent review. For each article, we captured descriptive information (like authors and research design). Content variables which aligned with the review’s analytical focus were also captured. These variables were: (1) ways/modes of inclusion, (2) the extent of informal actors’ involvement in formal planning processes and (3) informal–formal integration challenges. After extraction into a spreadsheet by three authors, the data were exported to NVivo (version 15) for coding.

The framework guided the initial deductive coding in NVivo. Decision-making, herein operationalised as the modes of involvement of informal actors and the extent of their involvement, was key. The framework helped structure and interpret data, using initial coding from its elements to inform themes emerging from the included articles (Naeem et al., 2023; Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2018). Inductively, codes were generated directly from the data itself, allowing patterns and themes to emerge (Naeem et al., 2023). The data extraction process was iterative, with rigorous discussions ensuring a standardised understanding of the codes among authors. Emerging themes were identified, and a final set of codes was produced. Thematic analysis was conducted in Google Sheets, where coded data were synthesised into overarching themes addressing primary questions.

Findings

Study Design and Methods

Study methodologies included qualitative (case studies, focus groups, interviews, photovoice, ethnography), quantitative (survey analysis), and mixed-method studies. Qualitative studies were the most prevalent (92%), followed by quantitative (4%) and mixed-method studies (4%).

Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Articles

Articles screened were from January 2010 to February 2025; however, between 2010 and 2014, none met the inclusion criteria, and the relevant publications included in this review were from 2015–2024 (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Source: Authors.

Spatially, most research focused on a single country (88%; n = 25 included studies) with only 3 studies (12%) covering multiple countries. A total of 36 countries were covered. In cases where a single article covered several countries, each country mentioned was counted as a separate study location. According to this approach, nine of the studies covered South Africa and Kenya each, followed by Ghana (n = 4) and other countries, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Source: Authors.

Informal Actors and Formal Climate Adaptation Planning

Residents of informal settlements played varied and interrelated roles in climate adaptation planning. Their involvement spans a range of innovative approaches, including co-production of knowledge, as detailed in Table 2. These efforts demonstrate informal actors’ capacity to shape context-specific adaptation strategies and contribute meaningfully to formal planning processes.

Table 2.

Informal Actors and Participatory Approaches in Climate Governance.

Method/Approach and Percentage of Articles (n = 25)	Actors Involved	Example Activities	Outcome	Relevant References (Examples)
Co-production of knowledge (24%)	Community-based Organisations (CBOs), community researchers and local authorities	Participatory enumeration, co-researching (mapping and risk assessments)	Informing local adaptation strategies, flood risk maps, prioritisation of adaptation interventions, community action plans	Brown-Luthango and Arendse (2022), Corburn et al. (2022), Loewenson et al. (2023), Richmond et al. (2018)
Digital storytelling, citizen science and local narratives (16%)	Youth, women, local citizen scientists	Document local experiences, peer-to-peer learning and citizen science	Improving climate literacy, advocating for inclusive adaptation planning, supporting localised adaptation plans, generating local data/insights to inform resilience planning and informing policy	Corburn et al. (2022), Karuga et al. (2023), Loewenson et al. (2023), Muchiri and Opiyo (2022).
Transformative upgrading and infrastructure co-design (16%)	CBOs, NGOs and local community members	Collaborative establishment of biocentres, participatory upgrading of informal settlements and services and co-designing drainage infrastructure	Climate-resilient infrastructure established in informal settlements according to community needs and priorities	Dobson et al. (2015), Opoku-Boateng et al. (2024), Parikh et al. (2020), Udo and Naidu (2023)
Asset-based community development and collective action (24%)	Local community members, in collaboration with NGOs, donors, women and youth groups	Self-organising, mobilising social capital, pooling resources, implementing activities using local expertise/labour (dredging, establishing food gardens)	Local activities focused on climate resilience (e.g., flood resilience, food security)	Dobson et al. (2015), Opoku-Boateng et al. (2024), Otsuki (2016), Udo and Naidu (2023), Wijesinghe and Thorn (2021)
Inclusion, representation and negotiated governance (40%)	Local community members	Informal settlement actors and groups included in planning forums, collaborative decision-making committees, negotiated authority spaces, formal partnerships for implementation, country-level roundtables	Influencing policy/service delivery, co-governance and institutional learning	Brown-Luthango and Arendse (2022), Corburn et al. (2022), Dobson et al. (2015), Leck et al. (2018), Muchiri and Opiyo (2022), Sutherland et al. (2015), Ziervogel et al. (2016)

Source: Authors.

The Extent of Involvement of Informal Actors in Climate Adaptation Planning

Despite existing initiatives which integrated marginalised voices in formal climate adaptation planning, the actual nature of this involvement varies in terms of timing, quality and influence. The emerging themes include the predominance of consultation, tokenistic participation, intermediary facilitation and co-production practices (Figure 6), which provide crucial adaptive capacity.

Figure 6.

Source: Authors.

Several studies suggest the frequent occurrence of consultation and information dissemination over genuine decision-making after the conclusion of planning processes (Agyekum & Asibey, 2024; Danielak, 2022; Desportes et al., 2016). Examples in Cape Town and Kumasi show strategies drafted where local officials’ roles are frequently excluded from the planning process in the trend of top-down mandates, hindering bottom-up engagements (Opoku-Boateng et al., 2024; Ziervogel et al., 2016).

Participation is confined to predefined agendas, and informal residents mainly provide labour support, environmental stewardship, or monitoring (Agyekum & Asibey, 2024; Brown-Luthango & Arendse, 2022; Corburn et al., 2022; Loewenson et al., 2023; Wijesinghe & Thorn, 2021). Examples include community tree-planting in Durban and the early warning system/sanitation project implementation in Kampala, which had negligible influence over broader agenda-setting or strategic design (Dobson et al., 2015; Richmond et al., 2018). Attempts at collaboration with informal actors often fail to be actualised or institutionalised into broader policy frameworks (Schofield & Gubbels, 2019; Ziervogel et al., 2016).

Informal residents often gained access to planning platforms through intermediaries like NGOs, faith-based groups, local CBOs, or community leaders (Dobson et al., 2015; Satterthwaite et al., 2020). However, there is evidence of the distortion of informal residents’ voices and reinterpretation of community priorities to align with external interests. This is seen in Kampala, where adaptation dialogues facilitated by religious groups followed donor-led climate agendas, and in Dar-es-Salaam, where NGOs framed the dialogue structure and selected the communities who would be invited (Dobson et al., 2015; Schofield & Gubbels, 2019), constraining informal residents’ ability to define their climate priorities.

Nevertheless, informal actors co-produce action and knowledge like community-led data collection and participatory planning (Corburn et al., 2022; Dobson et al., 2015; Wijesinghe & Thorn, 2021). Federations in cities like Kampala, Nairobi and Windhoek, in collaboration with marginalised groups (women and youth groups), participate in hazard mapping, solution development, and collective organisation (e.g., briquette-making, sanitation and urban agriculture improvements).

Formal–Informal Governance Integration Challenges

Some studies report varied challenges for the meaningful integration of informal actors’ initiatives into formal climate adaptation planning. Table 3 categorises the five challenges and provides examples from different African countries.

Table 3.

Key Challenges to Informal Actors’ Integration into Formal Climate Adaptation in Surveyed Articles.

Challenge Category	% of Articles It Is Described in (n = 25)	Description	References (Examples)
Technical language and communication barriers	15	Use of technical jargon and complex planning language excludes informal and formal actors (municipal staff) from climate planning. Actors’ involvement is limited to implementation phases due to inaccessible/ineffective communication and lack of transparency.	Agyekum and Asibey (2024), Danielak (2022), Mokoena (2023), Williams et al. (2018)
Socio-economic challenges	30	Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, cultural norms, stigma and logistical costs limit participation. Basic survival needs are prioritised over climate change concerns.	Chumo et al. (2023), Corburn et al. (2022), Desportes et al. (2016), Karuga et al. (2023), Opoku-Boateng et al. (2024), Parikh et al. (2020)
Power asymmetries and disregard of informal governance	33	The perception of the ‘illegality’ of informal settlements and tenure insecurity leads to their exclusion. Formal institutions often overlook informal governance and leadership, reducing participation to symbolic engagement.	Brown-Luthango and Arendse (2022), Loewenson et al. (2023), Otsuki (2016), Schofield and Gubbels (2019), Udo and Naidu (2023), Wijesinghe and Thorn (2021)
Institutional fragmentation	41	Overlapping mandates among government entities create confusion and reduce trust for informal actors. Weak coordination and rigid top-down planning cycles persist. Local actors are often involved in national plan implementation, where they have limited influence.	Asibey et al. (2024), Leck et al. (2018), Mokoena (2023), Muchiri and Opiyo (2022), Richmond et al. (2018), Sutherland et al. (2015), Ziervogel et al. (2016)
Resource and capacity constraints	41	Municipal planners/officials often lack the skills and funding for participatory planning. Informal actors like community leaders are overburdened and under-resourced. Priorities and weak infrastructure constrain collaborations/engagement.	Agyekum and Asibey (2024), Desportes et al. (2016), Filho et al. (2018), Loewenson et al. (2023), Parikh et al. (2020), Ziervogel et al. (2016)

Source: Authors.

Discussions

This review synthesises findings from 25 peer-reviewed research articles to explore the linkages between formal and informal governance arrangements for climate adaptation in informal settlements across African cities. The spatial and temporal distribution of the reviewed studies offers important context. The steady rise in the number of publications after 2015 shows growing interest and recognition of informal settlements and actors in shaping climate resilience, especially in rapidly urbanising African cities where state-led and technocratic approaches and interventions often fail (Cobbinah, 2023; Dobson et al., 2015; Satterthwaite et al., 2020; Wijesinghe & Thorn, 2021). This trend aligns with the global policy shift from the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 11, which emphasises urban resilience and sustainability. Despite this promising trajectory, publications on the topic remain modest, necessitating more research.

Spatially, research was mostly concentrated in South Africa and Kenya. In contrast, many countries in Central, West and Northern Africa are underrepresented, likely due to the relatively low research activity because of limited research capacity and/or low interest in the field. Additionally, the review’s focus on English-language articles limits representation of non-English speaking countries.

The findings reveal the involvement of informal actors in data production, reshaping the authority and expertise in urban governance across formal and informal domains (Brown-Luthango & Arendse, 2022; Loewenson et al., 2023). Community-led mapping, enumeration and risk assessments generate context-specific climate knowledge, repositioning informal actors as co-authors. This helps better understand risks and adaptation strategies and challenges narratives that frame informal settlements as passive and data-poor. These practices enhance epistemic legitimacy and shared agency, as shown in the informal settlements like Mukuru in Nairobi and Klipheuwel in Cape Town (Brown-Luthango & Arendse, 2022; Corburn et al., 2022).

Digital technologies and citizen science reposition marginalised actors as knowledge co-producers rather than data subjects, suggesting a shift in governance configurations. Community-led mapping and digital storytelling show how vulnerable groups assert epistemic agency, challenging technocratic discourses (Corburn et al., 2022; Karuga et al., 2023; Loewenson et al., 2023). Participatory systems create relevant data for adaptation planning and challenge power hierarchies by shaping policy through the community’s lived experiences. Co-production strategies integrate these community voices into participatory platforms, making adaptation governance more inclusive and context-responsive. This reconfiguration of knowledge politics reshapes both what counts as data and who counts as an expert, shifting power dynamics in adaptation planning.

Urban upgrading practices increasingly involve informal actors in creating resilient infrastructure such as solar-powered water points and decentralised water solutions (Dobson et al., 2015; Otsuki, 2016; Parikh et al., 2020). These locally driven innovations are sustainable and bring dignity into service delivery by ensuring that infrastructure design and management reflect residents’ needs and practices. Such grassroots interventions enhance infrastructure outcomes while redefining informality governance, urging a rethink of resilience frameworks to centre informal agency.

The evidence also challenges vulnerability-centric adaptation framings, highlighting the assets and organisational capacity within informal settlements. Community-driven flood mitigation, youth labour mobilisation and urban food gardens show marginalised actors shaping resilience pathways (Opoku-Boateng et al., 2024; Udo & Naidu, 2023). These practices position informal dwellers as critical adapters. Women’s and youth’s roles in community governance suggest a shift in intra-community hierarchies and formal–informal relations, supporting localised governance that redistributes power through everyday resilience practices.

Efforts to integrate informal actors into formal planning suggest a shift towards hybrid governance models that validate informal structures. Spaces like climate roundtables and infrastructure committees reflect increasing collaboration in governance and service delivery. Youth-led digital mapping in Kibera, for instance, improves planning responsiveness while building institutional learning and adaptive capacity. By embedding informal knowledge and authority in decision-making, these approaches contest formal–informal binaries and offer new perspectives on inclusive climate adaptation in African cities.

However, despite instances of collaboration between diverse actors in climate governance in African cities, informal settlements’ participation in climate adaptation planning remains tokenistic overall, often limited to post-hoc information sharing after planning processes have concluded (Agyekum & Asibey, 2024; Ziervogel et al., 2016). This excludes communities from shaping adaptation priorities and reinforces elite-driven governance configurations. Such patterns echo critiques of participatory governance as performative and legitimising pre-made decisions, which highlights the enduring tensions around voice, power and control in urban governance processes (Cornwall, 2008). The task-specific involvement of informal actors reflects entrenched power asymmetries that privilege technocratic planning, wherein communities are mobilised for implementation but excluded from agenda-setting and resource allocation (Taylor & Peter, 2014). This necessitates governance approaches that institutionalise inclusive decision-making and distribute authority more equitably towards transformative climate adaptation planning.

While intermediaries like NGOs, faith-based groups and CBOs can improve access to formal governance, they may also reconfigure power dynamics by distorting local voices to align with external agendas (Dobson et al., 2015; Satterthwaite et al., 2020). This limits residents’ ability to articulate climate concerns on their terms and calls for greater accountability and scrutiny of intermediaries’ roles. Conversely, co-production practices in cities like Kampala and Nairobi show how informal actors contribute through knowledge, labour and everyday innovations (Corburn et al., 2022; Dobson et al., 2015). Stronger policy frameworks would legitimise co-produced approaches, as institutional shifts towards inclusive governance remain uneven.

Multiple challenges to integrating informal actors’ initiatives meaningfully into formal climate adaptation planning are revealed. Technocratic language in adaptation persists in Accra, Durban and Cape Town (Agyekum & Asibey, 2024; Mokoena, 2023; Williams et al., 2018). This reinforces unequal power relations by rendering climate plans inaccessible to residents and some officials alike, limiting informal actors’ involvement to implementation phases and constraining their agency within the governance configuration.

Socio-economic inequalities (e.g., poverty and uneven infrastructure access) further hinder engagement, highlighting the socio-material dimension of governance configurations. For example, in Cape Town’s Sweet Home settlement, logistical challenges, stigmatising narratives and high costs restrict community mobilisation (Desportes et al., 2016). Governance processes and participation mechanisms privilege formal actors and institutional logics, marginalising poor urban groups. The persistent failure of formal institutions to recognise informal governance structures, community leaders, and local knowledge systems exacerbates exclusion (Karuga et al., 2023; Mokoena, 2023; Otsuki, 2016). Informality is often conflated with illegality, reinforcing exclusion from services and discouraging investment in adaptive practices, which remain invisible or dismissed within formal governance configurations.

If participatory forums are present, they often exemplify symbolic participation rather than redistribution of authority, illustrating the procedural nature of governance configurations (Sutherland et al., 2015; Wijesinghe & Thorn, 2021). Decision-making for disaster risk reduction and integrated development remains centralised, with consultation governed by managerial logics prioritising control over co-production (Brown-Luthango & Arendse, 2022; Loewenson et al., 2023). Inaccessible meeting locations and inconvenient scheduling further restrict meaningful participation, perpetuating exclusion.

Institutional fragmentation and overlapping mandates complicate engagement and dilute accountability, reinforcing power imbalances (Richmond et al., 2018). Centralised planning frameworks sideline local actors, while participatory forums suffer from irregularity, underfunding and are often symbolic, especially in politically sensitive contexts (Agyekum & Asibey, 2024; Danielak, 2022). Informal leaders face economic and logistical barriers, and climate adaptation lacks political prioritisation. Despite the policy rhetoric, structural constraints, tight deadlines, overlapping authorities and limited resources continue to exclude informal actors. This shows how power is not only exercised through institutions but also through control over time, shaping who gets to participate, how, when and on what conditions, ultimately shaping urban adaptation governance configurations.

Conclusion

This review highlights the increasing acknowledgement of informal actors’ role in adaptation. Community-driven innovations, participatory knowledge systems and inclusive governance frameworks challenge traditional, hierarchical narratives and demonstrate the capacity of hybrid governance models to improve climate resilience. These shifts reconfigure authority, data ownership and planning processes, elevating informal actors’ epistemic legitimacy and emphasising the importance of centring local voices, assets and everyday practices in adaptation efforts. Despite the emergence of participatory mechanisms, inclusion often remains symbolic, constrained by technocratic discourse, centralised authority and resource limitations. Governance hierarchies continue to privilege formal interests, reinforcing a misalignment between institutional planning paradigms and the lived realities of marginalised urban populations. Yet, emerging co-production practices signal pathways towards more equitable and contextually relevant adaptation futures. To realise this potential, governance structures and relationships must be reconfigured to embrace pluralism, redistribute power and institutionalise mechanisms that bridge formal–informal divides. Reframing informality as a critical innovation and resilience site embeds redistributive participation, local agency and intermediary accountability into formal planning. This review’s limitation to articles published in English and to studies available up to February 2025 might have excluded relevant research from non-English-speaking countries as well as the most recent studies. Further research should assess the sustainability, scalability and equity implications of community-driven and co-governance adaptation strategies in the global South. This should include how institutional learning, trust-building and intermediary processes shape outcomes.