Empowering Communities to Act for a Change: A Review of the Community Empowerment Programs towards Sustainability and Resilience

Abstract

At the global level, significant efforts have been made to address societal challenges and improve the lives of people and restore the planet’s ecosystems through sustainability and resilience programs. These programs, however, tend to be driven by governments, private sectors, and financial institutions, and therefore often lack a process of empowerment to ensure that the local communities can participate actively in co-designing and implementing these programs. More knowledge is needed on how to develop such programs and how the process of empowerment can be organized so that it supports in the long run sustainability transformation. Against this background, the paper explores the role of community empowerment programs as a critical tool for sustainability management strategies and practices. A semi-systematic review of 21 community empowerment programs for sustainability and resilience is conducted. The analysis reveals that the programs mostly aimed to address challenges such as the lack of education and capacity, limited access to basic services and resources, and poor governance and management. The programs initiators involve a diverse set of actors, especially through established partnerships and networks. Most of the programs address the specific needs of vulnerable or marginalized groups or communities. The structure of the programs typically follows a phased methodological approach, beginning with awareness-raising and problem identification, followed by capacity building that allows for making decisions collaboratively and for co-creating innovative solutions based on local knowledge and values. Also, monitoring and evaluation of transformative impact are mentioned as important structural elements. Specifically, the analysis highlights four main focus areas of empowerment: (1) capacity building, (2) self-reliance, control, ownership, responsibility, and independence, (3) participation, engagement, and collective action, and (4) integration of local knowledge and values. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to such programs. Instead, successful empowerment programs towards sustainability depend on a deep understanding of local contexts and the ability to tailor strategies to meet specific community needs. The review also identified knowledge gaps that require further investigation to enhance the effectiveness of empowerment programs for both people and nature.

1. Introduction

There is a growing recognition that a fundamental transformation toward sustainability is essential for mitigating climate change, achieving sustainable development goals, and building a more environmentally conscious and resilient future [1,2,3]. The approaches to transformations towards sustainability have become a central role in both global sustainability research and policy discussions in the last decades, e.g., being a key reference for the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and the various global sustainability research platforms (e.g., the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Future Earth, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), etc.). It is important to note that as an approach, sustainability transformation has also experienced evolution where its primary focus on describing problems and identifying solutions has been shifted to getting a better and shared understanding of potential sustainability pathways [1,3,4,5]. The latter underlines the value of social innovations, capacity building, learning, and knowledge co-production as well as new narratives for sustainability transformations that are strongly linked to community engagement.

Recently, engaging communities in these sustainability transformation processes has been acknowledged as essential. Various studies have highlighted that communities play a significant role in this transformation, e.g., through changing their attitudes, values, and behaviors as well as adopting more sustainable ways of living, technologies, and consumption [6,7,8,9]. Moreover, it was demonstrated that due to their local knowledge and experiences, local communities had the capacity to solve the problems related to climate mitigation and achievement of the sustainability goals [10,11,12,13].

On a global scale, a great effort has been made to address the current societal challenges and ensure that the benefits are provided for both people and nature. In particular, a variety of sustainability and resilience programs worldwide have been developed and implemented. Among them are the UN Program on the World’s 17-point Plan for Achieving the SDGs by 2030 [14], the World Bank’s Global Program on Sustainability for Making Nature Count for People and Planet [15], IPBES programs and activities [16], and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) focusing on climate, nature, pollution, and sustainable development [17]. Also, the European Green Deal [18] provides a set of EC policy initiatives with the overarching aim of making Europe climate-neutral by 2050 based on measures related to promoting the efficient use of resources, restoring biodiversity, and decreasing environmental pollution. Additionally, the World Sustainability Organization [19] has initiated several programs to protect critical habitats and endangered species globally by utilizing sustainability certifications, conservation and awareness projects, etc. Moreover, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) in its report [20] emphasized the need for improving participatory processes where the citizens can contribute collectively to creating resilient futures. Still, these sustainability programs, which are mostly based on scientific evidence and often aimed at better-informed decisions, have been mainly made by governments, private sectors, and financial institutions. However, civil society/local communities remain solely recipients or—in best cases—passive beneficiaries of those sustainability programs. The approaches used there hardly (if at all) incorporate the concept of empowerment; however, the communities cannot be seen solely as passive beneficiaries or users of nature’s benefits/ecosystem services, as they also have the capacity to influence local sustainability decision-making [10,12,13] (Kemmerzell and Hofmeister, 2019; Toniolo et al., 2023; Zeigermann et al., 2023). Moreover, several studies [11,21,22,23,24,25] have confirmed that empowered stakeholders and leaders can actively decide, plan, protect, manage, or restore ecosystems, thereby making meaningful contributions to driving sustainability changes, enhancing resilience, and fostering socio-economic development. This underlines the need for a better understanding of how to enable community empowerment to support and drive sustainability transformation. In particular, Vignola et al. [25] discussed the roles of different stakeholders in designing and implementing strategies for ecosystem-based adaptation as part of their local resource planning. They emphasized the value of equitable partnerships with a variety of stakeholders (especially, public–private ones), and highlighted the role of NGOs in strengthening Indigenous populations in protecting their rights and values in the design of adaptation plans. Their research along with the other studies [22,24] also demonstrated the benefits of integrating local knowledge of civil society in problem identification, strategy formulation, selection of policy options, monitoring, and evaluation. As stated by Gonzalez-Porras et al. [21], empowered individual stakeholders play “… a proactive role in innovation processes, acting as stimulators, initiators, brokers/mediators, concept refiners” and support “the generation and implementation of… low-energy housing”, “making sustainable consumption choices” [21], p. 217.

For this purpose, the paper applied a semi-systematic review (narrative review approach) to synthesize the existing literature on community empowerment for transformations towards sustainability and resilience. This study was done within the Horizon Europe project EmpowerUs (Grant No. 101059957) aiming to support the resilience of local communities in becoming more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. At the core of the project lies the idea of the synergetic approach that is aimed to align scientific evidence with community knowledge and participation. In doing so, we aimed to explore how to organize and implement the process of empowering communities for sustainability-related actions, decision-making, and participation. Moreover, it was important to identify what makes such programs successful in achieving sustainability and resilience, how to conceptually develop and practically implement them, as well as what is the value of community empowerment for a sustainability transition.

In scientific and grey literature, empowerment is considered both a process and an outcome that involves: (a) individual/psychological empowerment; (b) development of small mutual groups; (c) community organizations; (d) building partnerships; and (e) undertaking social and political action [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. In the EmpowerUs project, empowerment is defined as the process in which actors/stakeholders gain power [33] and/or decision-making capacity [26,27] to mobilize resources and institutions for achieving certain sustainability goals. In this regard, three dimensions of empowerment have been used: (1) access to resources and institutions; (2) strategies to mobilize them; and (3) the willingness to do so.

Nevertheless, there is no systematic review or understanding of how an empowerment program can be developed and how to successfully implement it to ensure the input for sustainability.

This paper aimed to answer the following overarching research question: How can empowerment programs support communities in their transition processes toward sustainability and resilience? Research sub-questions aiding our analysis included: (a) What are the main objectives of those programs (incl. dimensions of sustainability and main challenges addressed)? (b) Who has initiated the programs? (c) What key targeted groups were addressed? (d) What are the main structural elements and actions of the programs? (e) What particular types of empowerment and their outcomes were demonstrated there? (f) What main approaches were used for the monitoring and evaluation of these programs?

Against this background, our review has considered seven main characteristics: (1) dimensions of sustainability which the program referred to; (2) initiators of the program, (3) target stakeholders or community groups that are supposed to be empowered, (4) timeframe, (5) structural elements of the program (main actions and approaches used), (6) types and outcomes of empowerment achieved; (7) expected sustainability-related output and indicators to evaluate it. The results obtained allowed us to identify several knowledge gaps in making such empowerment programs more successful and beneficial for both people and nature.

2. Materials and Methods

In this study, a semi-systematic review (narrative review approach) was applied to synthesize the existing literature on community empowerment for transformations towards sustainability and resilience. In comparison to the systematic review, a semi-systematic approach (also called targeted or focused literature review) allowed for not only focus on high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles on the research subject, but also for locating relevant grey literature (non-peer-reviewed sources such as project materials, policy notes, project reports, websites, etc.) [34]. We decided to integrate these non-peer-reviewed sources because we realized an insufficient number of relevant scientific publications. Our main research object—empowerment programs towards sustainability and resilience—in many cases appeared in the form of project reports, policy briefs, or project materials. This semi-systematic literature review combined systematic elements presented in the methodological protocol (Figure 1) with a more flexible narrative approach, allowing for a deeper qualitative analysis and interpretation of data. This enabled a more iterative process that led to a broader scope of included studies and a better understanding of the current state-of-the-art and trends in a research field. Moreover, it provided a possibility to map theoretical approaches and identify knowledge gaps within the selected literature [34].

In particular, it explored how the community empowerment programs have been progressing over time and how they have been developed within various research traditions/domains and implementation practices. The review also aimed to identify, understand, and then reflect on the used definitions of community empowerment and empowerment towards sustainability and resilience in order to reveal their main characteristics, approaches, and target stakeholders. Moreover, our review intended to better understand the theoretical background and practical implications of such programs to develop the framework for community empowerment programs within the EmpowerUs project. In the process of covering a broad range of empowerment within those programs and different types of approaches applied, our review has developed a certain research strategy to enable readers to follow the logic/algorithm of the research process and to access the main arguments for including the particular program in the review. The review included the following steps and processes presented in Figure 1. Step 1 referred to data gathering. Scientific papers and grey literature identified through Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar platforms were included in the scope of the screening process, with no geographical and timely limitations, through the search that used the following keywords: community, empowerment, sustainability, resilience, program (as a result, 38 programs were found in total). During the second step, the data obtained were screened and cleaned. For this purpose, title and abstract reading were performed using the following navigating questions: (a) Does it relate to/provide/analyze any community empowerment program? (b) Is this program aiming to achieve sustainability and resilience? (c) Does it match the definition of empowerment used in the project? (consequently, 28 programs were selected for the full-text screening). Step 3 was aimed at data collection when all available full texts (incl. related papers, reports, deliverables, etc.) were downloaded and added to the data and knowledge base (in total, 21 programs remained for the data analysis). Step 4 (data analysis) contained full-text reading and filtering data (i.e., planned programs were excluded from the review). Step 5 is related to data mapping, with the following structuring of the findings using the additional criteria provided in

Table 1. The most common actions mentioned in the reviewed empowerment programs.

Examples of the Actions within the Programs’ Structure	Frequency of Appearance among the Programs
Mobilizing the forces of the target group	Appeared in all programs
Capacity building
Local knowledge exchange
Enhancing community interaction
Assisting by the implementation	Mentioned in more than half of the programs
Providing basic services (food, childcare, health)
Monitoring and Evaluation
Creation or upgrading of built or transport infrastructure	Mentioned by several programs
Creating new organizational forms to support and represent community’s needs (committees, active groups)
Future vision formulation (plans, strategies)
Support in upscaling of solutions
Enhancing data collection
Stimulating women’s participation in decision making
Introduction of sustainable agricultural practices

. Finally, Step 6 was devoted to synthesizing and interpreting the results as well as their discussion based on the findings from the existing publications.

In order to analyze and synthesize the findings from a semi-systematic review we used a thematic/content analysis that helped to identify, assess, and report on the certain criteria provided in Table 1 and later textually interpret the findings (following [34,35]). The selected type of literature analysis allowed us to detect themes/thematic scopes, and main elements (such as program structure, number of required actions, monitoring and evaluation approach, etc.) as well as identify the key requirements to ensure the program is successful, comprehensive and achieving its sustainability vision. Finally, the obtained results enabled us to define the knowledge gaps in the existing literature that need further examination.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of the Programs (Geographical Context, Timeframe, Main Challenges Addressed, Key Objectives, and Dimensions of Sustainability Considered)

The reviewed empowerment programs (Table S1, Annex) vary in their geographical context, timeframe, main objectives, dimensions of sustainability, and main challenges addressed. However, there are some common features/similarities that contributed to the development of a certain typology.

In regard to the geographical context of the implementation, some programs (N = 3) were designed for the entire geographic regions, such as the Mediterranean, European rural areas, and the Asia-Pacific region. However, most programs were country-specific (Figure 2). The largest number of programs were related to Indonesian communities, probably due to their diversity within the country, e.g., programs supporting certain communities in different parts and islands of Indonesia (N = 9). There were also programs operating in the European region (N = 3), with the main focus on rural communities. The same number of programs (N = 3) were targeted at supporting communities in African countries (e.g., Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal). The American continents were represented by the programs from Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Overall, besides the differences in geographical context, the majority of the programs were aimed at empowering communities in rural areas. In most cases, the time frame is related to the long-term perspective, varying from 3 to 10 years. Largely, this is due to the following reasons: (a) the complexity of the program’s objectives; and (b) the issue that sustainability goals and empowerment processes are naturally rooted in long-term ambition.

The main challenges addressed by the programs can be categorized into seven groups (areas of challenges) (Figure 3). It was revealed that the largest group is represented by the lack of education and capacity (the total number of mentioned challenges is 32). In this category, the most frequently appeared challenges include the lack of personal capacity for life maintenance (N = 10) and the low level of environmental education/awareness (N = 5). The programs, however, often addressed several problems of financial literacy, insufficient professional skills, and a lack of awareness about sustainability projects or local resources. The second biggest area of challenges relates to the lack of access to basic services (health, education, infrastructure). Here such challenges as a lack of basic health and food services (N = 8), limited access to information (N = 6), and low infrastructure quality (N = 5) were most frequently mentioned among all reviewed programs. The group of poor governance and management has a similarly high number of mentioned challenges (25) with an emphasis on the lack of community participation in sustainability measures (N = 9), the lack of leadership and the weak government/management (N = 5), and the lack of networking among different stakeholders (N = 4). Other relatively big groups/areas of challenges are climate change effects and environmental degradation where environmental degradation was of special focus by several programs along with coastal erosion, floods, droughts, water quality, insecurity, etc. Unemployment, poverty, and income insecurity were also considered the key target challenges (the total number of mentioned challenges is 17) along with the food insecurity and unsustainable agricultural practices that have caused loss of soil fertility and food-related insecurity (14). Finally, social and gender inequality-related challenges were also encountered (10) with a particular emphasis on the lack of gender-responsive policies and actions (N = 4) as well as exclusion, discrimination, and inequalities (N = 2).

In most cases, the key objectives of those programs were to enable people to take initiative, make decisions for themselves, and solve complex problems. Many programs were aimed at empowering communities through enhancing their capacity (since it was the most frequently appeared area of challenge) to ensure food security, improve nutrition, and boost household incomes. Central to these objectives was the emphasis on sustainable development achieved by involving local populations in decision-making processes and fostering collaboration among the different stakeholders. The programs also focused on empowering communities through harnessing their inherent strengths to build resilience and self-sufficiency through initiatives that improve education and health. This included providing access to educational resources, particularly in environmental sustainability and resource management, and offering practical support in local languages to enhance community well-being. Economic empowerment is another key focus, with the efforts directed at providing guidance, training, and capacity-building in financial and human management, along with infrastructure support to enhance community prosperity. The programs also emphasized the importance of community participation, ownership, and collective action, aiming to increase control over local resources and promote social and political change. Preserving culture and traditional knowledge along with strengthening independence have been a part of many programs as well. This is especially relevant for remote communities, where traditional knowledge and local wisdom are leveraged to improve quality of life and transform food systems towards sustainability. Additionally, the programs advocated for gender-responsive policies in order to ensure that the benefits of community development are equitably distributed and that women are represented in decision-making processes. Finally, the programs sought to improve community cohesion, promote self-governance, and encourage resident interactions through various activities. They supported different types of community associations, mostly focusing on quality of life in rural communities and emphasizing environmental protection and ecological tourism.

Due to the complexity of most reviewed programs, they tended to focus on all three aspects of sustainability (12 of 21 programs). Other programs were primarily related to two aspects of sustainability, in particular, the most commonly appeared combination was social and economic sustainability (N = 7), often emphasizing economic or social goals while overlooking environmental concerns. These empowerment programs related to economic and social sustainability were often aimed at improving financial well-being by enhancing financial skills, knowledge, and confidence, particularly for marginalized or neglected social groups, but also at improving community health and quality of life. Key competencies such as self-control, decision-making, social skills, and self-governance have been frequently highlighted in these programs. Social empowerment in that case was often portrayed as a process of building autonomy, self-confidence, and the skills necessary for individuals and communities to work towards a better future. These programs operated at various levels, from empowering individuals to engage in participatory processes to promoting inclusive community planning and governance. In contrast, only a few empowerment programs were focused on environmental and social sustainability (N = 2). These initiatives often targeted food security, sustainable farming, natural resource management, flood resilience, disaster risk reduction, and renewable energy. They were designed to equip individuals and communities with the tools and resources needed to improve their lives in the long term, particularly through participation in environmentally-focused decisions. Key objectives of these programs included raising environmental awareness, promoting environmental literacy, providing knowledge support, offering environmental education, and developing technical innovations such as early warning systems for disaster risk reduction and support for renewable energy systems.

3.2. Main Actors of the Programs: Initiators and Target Groups

The empowerment programs were initiated by a diverse set of actors, including NGOs, international organizations and funds, corporate entities, governments, as well as research and educational institutions. In most cases, the program had two or more initiators (e.g., one leading initiator such as a government or an international organization(-s) in partnership with the local one) whereas programs with one initiator are rare. Key initiators include:

• Government bodies (public authorities and decision-makers): National, regional, and local governments are the key initiators in most programs (N = 10). Among the examples are the Indigenous community empowerment program on the sustainability of the local food crops in West Papua (Indonesia), the Promoting Economic Empowerment Through Effective Implementation and Linking Social Capital in Urban Agriculture Programs (Malaysia), the Empowering Rural Communities through Smart Technology (UK) with the main purpose to address country-specific or regional challenges such as loss of traditional knowledge, coastal challenges, effects of climate change, poor management of rural and remote areas, etc.
• International organizations, unions, networks, and international bodies like UN Women and UNEP are also key initiators (N = 6). The programs initiated by this group were typically aimed at effecting policy changes and empowering communities on a large scale (e.g., the EmPower program in the Asia-Pacific region).
• International funds and charities: Some of the programs were supported/financed by international charities and funding bodies (N = 4). For instance, the House Project, which operates in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, India, and Jordan, is backed by a few international charity organizations. Similarly, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) supports the National Community Empowerment Program in Indonesia.
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Several programs (N = 4) are headed by NGOs, such as COSDEP in Kenya and The Tostan community in Senegal. These organizations often focus on grassroots initiatives that are aimed at empowering local communities through education, training, and capacity-building activities.
• Educational and Research Institutions: Educational institutions and research organizations also contribute to these empowerment efforts (N = 3). The Family Wellbeing Community Empowerment Education Program in Australia is one of the examples of how educational entities can play a critical role in community development by providing training for raising awareness and improving knowledge and skills.
• Corporate Actors/Private Companies: In a few cases (N = 2), corporate entities have taken the lead in community empowerment efforts, particularly when their corporate interests align with the development of local communities. For example, the Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) initiated a fire management and community empowerment program in Indonesia.

Most of the programs were developed to address the specific needs of vulnerable or marginalized groups or communities such as farmers and rural communities. Therefore, some programs were designed to support farmers, particularly those operating on a small scale or within the indigenous communities. These initiatives focused on improving food security, increasing income/wages, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices, as evidenced by the programs in Kenya and West Papua. Women were another vulnerable group that was targeted by a significant number of programs in order to enhance their economic opportunities, provide education, and address gender disparities. For example, the EmPower program in the Asia-Pacific region is one of the examples, focused on empowering women and promoting gender-responsive policies. Indigenous communities were also considered in the program as an intended audience. There were certain initiatives aiming at preserving cultural identity while simultaneously improving the economic and social well-being of these groups, as seen in the programs in West Papua. Youth and children were often brought up as well. For example, the Empowering Local Communities initiative in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, India, and Jordan focused on providing education, leadership skills, and health services to young people.

Some programs focused on communities that were vulnerable to climate change risks. Many of the initiatives were tailored to support vulnerable or at-risk populations, including those affected by climate change, poor health, or poverty. A few programs like the LEADER+ initiative in rural Europe and the disaster-resilient communities’ program in Nepal specialized in enhancing the resilience and self-sufficiency of these communities.

3.3. Key Structural Elements and List of Actions Listed in the Programs

Many programs had an iterative (stepwise) list of actions, while others initiated several actions simultaneously. However, more narrowly specialized programs (e.g., programs 1 and 17) had a shorter list of actions, but they were more thoroughly developed and detailed. Generally, for most programs, the final outcome was crucial, and for this purpose, a monitoring and evaluation plan along with indicators of goal achievement often appeared as the last item in the program. As a rule, most programs had the following common structure:

(1)

Awareness raising, problem identification, and understanding. The initial actions most commonly involved awareness raising, defining, and understanding of problems/challenges of the communities.

(2)

Learning, training, and capacity building. As the next step, programs usually included actions towards capacity building, e.g., through delivering learning opportunities, training, workshops, etc. to obtain/extend necessary knowledge and skills.

(3)

Enhancing community interaction through co-creation and participation. Once communities had recognized their agency and acquired the necessary knowledge and skills, the programs started to stimulate co-creation and participation among various stakeholder groups, providing them with the opportunities to be heard, involving communities (especially those groups that are underrepresented and marginalized) in decision-making processes, and creating platforms for communication and exchange.

(4)

Co-developing sustainable solutions and management plans for their implementation. Some programs included an action such as future vision formulation at this step.

(5)

Assisting by the implementation. The next action was usually related to the support by the implementation of decisions co-created with the community and the establishment of proper management and leadership structures for the equal distribution of resources and benefits. At this stage, small representative groups may be formed to act on behalf of the community and advocate for their rights. Depending on the funding as well as credibility, authority, power, and influence of the initiator, the community received a certain amount of assistance with infrastructure development (e.g., road and building construction or improvement) and support in the implementation of the project along with the monitoring of its alignment with sustainability goals.

(6)

Monitoring and evaluation. The final action in almost all the programs was the monitoring and evaluation of the program’s success and achievement of set goals, most often through the use of a certain list of indicators.

In summary, the most consistently used actions across all programs were mobilizing the target group, capacity building, local knowledge exchange, and enhancing community interaction (see Table 1). Other actions were applied more selectively, depending on the specific focus and goals of the empowerment program.

3.4. Program Outputs and Empowerment Achieved (Incl. Definitions, Approaches, and Outcomes of Empowerment)

3.4.1. Definition of Empowerment

In the reviewed programs, empowerment was defined and measured in various ways focusing on its particular aspects/features. Only a few programs (13, 18, 19) used empowerment without defining it at all, however, they emphasized what particular approaches they used (so-called “empowerment through” that will be analyzed later in this section). Often, empowerment was understood as a practice of motivating individuals and communities to take an action for accomplishing important goals or objectives. In most programs, empowerment has been described as a deliberate, ongoing process rooted in local communities which can be characterized by “increasing self-reliance”, “a sense of control over own life”, and “independence” mostly through the “capacity building” via “learning”, “education”, and optimizing “access to resources” as well as “collective participation in planning, decision making, and management” that consider “local wisdom and traditional knowledge” (Figure 4).

However, many programs referred to empowerment as not only a process but also a transformative outcome for individuals, organizations, and entire communities that is precisely in line with the sustainability transformation approach. It was mostly because the programs often emphasized that simply making people feel empowered was not enough. Thus, they also aimed at developing empowerment strategies to gain and apply the actual power needed to make significant, and tangible improvements in the community and people’s lives.

The comprehensive analysis of definitions found in the programs allowed us to identify four main focus areas of empowerment: (1) capacity building, (2) self-reliance, control, ownership, responsibility, and independence, (3) participation, engagement, and collective action, and (4) integration of local knowledge and values.

Table 2. Definitions of empowerment found in the reviewed programs and their focus area and features.

Key Focus Area	Main Features of the Focus Area	Corresponding Definitions of Empowerment Provided in the Reviewed Programs	Programs That Used It (More Details See in Table S1)
(1) capacity building	building the individuals’ and community’s capacity, providing skills, training, and education to enable self-reliance and sustainable development	building capacity of communities to secure their own food, nutrition, and income at the household level	program 1
		building capacity at a collective level to identify the community’s strengths and needs to tackle issues for family, organizational, and community improvement	program 7
		helping community members to become experts in their lives and communities through capacity building, recognizing the values of community knowledge and wisdom	program 8
		providing tailored capacity-building initiatives to help communities in their development and opening up increased access to financing opportunities aligned with the SDGs	program 11
		getting the capability to deal with the external world and changes	program 12
		building community capacity through skills training to actively engage with the development process	program 16
		optimizing human potential to achieve basic human goals through capacity building	program 20
		increased human capital through capacity building	program 21
(2) self-reliance, control, ownership, responsibility and independence	increasing self-reliance, a sense of control over own life, and independence by optimizing local resources	recognizing the power that lies within the communities and working together to harness it; providing access to resources and opportunities to individuals and groups within a community to take control of their own lives and achieve sustainable change; fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility within the community to solve their problems and create a more equitable and just society	program 2
		gaining power and control over people’s own lives, so that the people get the support they need; this makes it a joint task with professionals as a part of organizing integrated care; increasing community ownership and collective actions that explicitly aim at social and political change	program 8
		increasing independence of community residents without losing the cultural color in the form of local wisdom and traditional knowledge in achieving life welfare or improving people’s quality of life	program 9
		gaining control over people’s lives by developing new skills, generating new knowledge, and enhancing capability	program 10
		gaining a sense of own collective strength by community members; developing the power of the group and exercising that power is the ultimate product of the community facilitation process	program 12
		unveiling the forgotten cultural stories behind communities through gaining a sense of own collective strength, with the assistance of governments and financial supports	program 14
		gaining control over the factors and decisions that shape people’s lives	program 16
		making the community and its members independent so they can improve their lives by optimizing the resources they have	program 21
(3) participation, engagement, and collective action	active participation in collective decision-making, fostering ownership, and enhancing community engagement in socio-political processes	recognizing the power that lies within the communities and working together to harness, promoting social, economic, and political participation	program 2
		engaging communities by providing human rights-based education classes for adults and youth, and through training and support of a community management committee to advance community projects	programs 3 and 4
		engaging communities in planning, decision-making, and managing their local resources through self-development, collective action, and networking, ultimately enabling them to achieve economic, ecological, and social self-reliance	program 6
		strengthening local participation in the sustainable development of coastal regions	program 15
		empowerment is linked to participation	program 16
		networking and building synergy within the community	program 20
(4) integration of local knowledge and values	integrating local knowledge, wisdom, and traditional practices into community initiatives to promote identity as a part of empowerment	recognizing the values of community knowledge and wisdom	program 8
		increasing the ability and independence of community residents without losing the cultural color in the form of local wisdom and traditional knowledge in achieving life welfare or improving people’s quality of life	program 9

categorizes different focus areas related to empowerment in various community programs and defines how these focus areas have been understood or implemented across different studies.

In particular, those programs that defined empowerment focusing mostly on capacity building involved such elements as enhancing individual and community skills, education, and resources to foster self-reliance and sustainable development. This includes various training activities to secure basic needs like food and income, recognizing community knowledge, and facilitating access to development strategies. Therefore, empowerment in this context is often seen as increasing the community’s capacity to handle its challenges and improve overall conditions. The emphasis is on skill-building, recognizing community strengths, and enabling access to resources.

Programs that in their definition of empowerment mostly referred to enhancing community self-reliance, control, ownership, responsibility, and independence, were aimed at harnessing local resources and knowledge, increasing community ownership, and encouraging responsibility. Empowerment here is seen as the process of gaining control over one’s life, with the emphasis on providing/improving access to local resources, collective action, and the cultural aspects of empowerment.

Several other programs defined empowerment through promoting participation, engagement, and collective action in planning, decision-making, and management, focusing on enhancing socio-political involvement and ownership of initiatives. Empowerment in these programs is linked to community involvement in decision-making and management of local and regional resources, fostering self-development, collective action, networking, and participation in socio-political processes, enabling them to achieve sustainability goals.

And lastly, a few programs understood empowerment by increasing the ability and independence of the community through the integration of its local knowledge, values, wisdom, and traditional practices into community initiatives. This focus area emphasizes promoting cultural identity as part of empowerment. Consequently, empowerment is defined as the preservation and integration of local cultural knowledge and practices into community development, ensuring that modernization does not erase cultural identity.

Hereby, we can see the multifaceted nature of empowerment, with different programs focusing on various aspects such as capacity building, self-reliance, participation, and the integration of local knowledge. Each focus area is associated with specific definitions of empowerment, reflecting on the diversity in how empowerment is conceptualized and operationalized in different contexts. Often, programs include several or even all focus areas in their definition of empowerment demonstrating the importance of a complex and comprehensive approach to empowerment. The examples provided in Table 2 illustrate how different programs apply these concepts in practice, showing the range of strategies used to empower communities.

3.4.2. Types of Empowerment Identified

Based on the results or outputs of various empowerment programs, empowerment can be categorized into several types: personal, economic, political, organizational, community, gender, digital, environmental, and social. These categories often overlapped, with many programs aiming to achieve multiple forms of empowerment simultaneously. Community and social empowerment were mentioned most frequently, followed by economic, gender, and personal empowerment. In contrast, digital empowerment appeared rarely.

Community Empowerment tended to promote community participation and inclusion as well as support social capital and networking development. For instance, programs such as “Empowering Local Communities: Building Stronger and Sustainable Futures” (Colombia, Dominican Republic, etc.), and “Resilient Coastal Area Development and Empowerment Program” (Java, Indonesia) focused on community participation in decision-making processes and building resilience and self-sufficiency. Meanwhile, the “Compass for Rural Europe” program, which highlighted the importance of social capital and community networking, also promoted community empowerment, aiming to enhance community collaboration and collective action for sustainable development.

Social Empowerment supported social cohesion, welfare, human rights, and social justice. Many programs addressed social empowerment by improving community welfare and cohesion. For instance, the “Indigenous Community Empowerment Program on the Sustainability of the Local Food Crops in West Papua” (Indonesia) provided access to health, education, and basic services to vulnerable groups, fostering social inclusion. The “Tostan’s Community Empowerment Program” focused on promoting human rights education and social mobilization skills to achieve dignity and equality for all community members.

Economic Empowerment stimulated income generation and financial stability of the communities. This type of empowerment is a central goal for programs such as the “National Community Empowerment Program” in Indonesian Villages, aiming to increase agricultural productivity and household income through improved financial literacy and resource management. Job creation and entrepreneurship support were also a part of economic empowerment. As an example, the “Promoting Economic Empowerment Through Effective Implementation and Linking Social Capital in Urban Agriculture Programs” in Malaysia emphasized creating job opportunities and fostering entrepreneurship in urban agriculture through providing training, technical assistance, and policy support.

Personal Empowerment was presented to some extent in all programs and advocated for self-esteem, life skills education, and knowledge acquisition. Several programs focused on enhancing self-confidence and life skills. For example, the “Family Wellbeing Community Empowerment Education Program” in Australia aimed to help Aboriginal people move from a place of self-blame and victimhood to a position of strength and control. Programs such as the “Tostan’s Community Empowerment Program” in West Africa empowered a personal sense of control and confidence by providing fundamental education in local languages and enhancing personal knowledge and skills, including literacy, numeracy, and health knowledge.

Political Empowerment supported participation in governance, democracy, and leadership development. These goals were pursued by programs such as the “SAKSHAM—Strengthening Local Governance for Disaster-Resilient Communities” in Nepal, which aimed to increase community participation in disaster risk management and local governance. The “LEADER+ program” in rural Europe provided another good example of political empowerment since it encouraged bottom-up approaches and democratic decision-making, aiming to enhance local governance and leadership skills.

Organizational Empowerment provided capacity building, institutional strengthening, and knowledge transfer. Many programs focused on organizational empowerment by reinforcing local institutions and community organizations. For instance, the “Sustainability of Community Empowerment as Development Strategies” program in Indonesian villages promoted the capacity building of local government to support community-driven development. At the same time, there were programs such as the “Desa Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program” in Indonesia, which were aimed at providing political empowerment through technology and knowledge transfer to improve forest management and organisational structures of the communities.

Environmental Empowerment intended to provide sustainable practices and environmental stewardship, making communities resilient to external environmental shocks. As an example, the “Community Sustainable Development Empowerment Program” in Kenya, focused on teaching sustainable agricultural practices to enhance food security and environmental conservation. Also, the “SAKSHAM” program in Nepal and the “EmPower” program in the Asia-Pacific region aimed at building climate resilience through sustainable practices and disaster risk management.

Gender Empowerment equipped communities with several gender-responsive policies and actions, making all gender groups well-represented and loaded up with tailored services. For instance, the “EmPower: Women for Climate-Resilient Societies” program in the Asia-Pacific region focused on establishing gender-responsive energy policies and promoting women’s leadership in climate resilience efforts. This program also supported women in setting up economic livelihood projects that leveraged renewable energy, thus addressing both gender and economic empowerment.

As previously mentioned, digital empowerment which aimed at providing access to digital technologies and skills was less common and only addressed in the “LEADER+ program”. This program encouraged the implementation of technological innovation to make rural products and services more competitive, thus indirectly promoting digital literacy and empowerment.

Analysis of the programs allowed us to reveal how and through what particular actions the processes of empowerment happened (Figure 5). We have identified five main approaches used for community empowerment that demonstrated how particularly (i.e., through which actions) empowerment as a process occurred as well as what its key outcomes were. We found out that one of the primary ways to empower communities was through education and training (e.g., by offering essential skills, knowledge, and educational opportunities to community members, empowering them to enhance their livelihoods, make decisions, etc.). As a result, the community got a sense of control and self-reliance as well as enhanced skills, knowledge, and awareness about sustainability-related matters (e.g., relevant for programs 1, 3, 7, 10). Another critical measure was building the capacity and resilience of communities. This involved improving their ability to respond to challenges systematically, manage local resources sustainably, and make informed decisions collectively (e.g., found in programs 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21). Empowerment was also achieved through fostering active participation and collective action among communities along with promoting networking and information exchange within and between communities (e.g., to spread knowledge and advocate for shared goals). This encouraged community members to be engaged in decision-making processes, collaborate to address local challenges, and increase social and political participation, fostering participatory behaviors, and organizational and other stakeholder networks. Moreover, it allowed for ensuring that community members have a voice in shaping policies and practices that affected their lives (e.g., relevant for programs 2, 3, 4, 8). Often, empowerment initiatives integrate local knowledge, cultural practices, and traditional values into their strategies. This approach ensures that community development is culturally relevant and promotes cultural and regional identity (programs 9, 14, 15, and 20). Improving community access to resources (incl. information) and essential services (e.g., healthcare, education, and social welfare) is another key approach to empowerment. It aims to provide equal opportunities for all (including marginalized groups and women) by ensuring that communities have enough resources needed for a better quality of life.

3.5. Main Approaches Used for Program Monitoring and Evaluation

The evaluation and monitoring indicators used in the programs can be categorized into several key areas, including social impact, economic outcomes, environmental sustainability, participation and engagement, and infrastructure development.

1. Social Impact. Health, education, and welfare: Indicators often measured improvements in health outcomes, educational access, and overall community well-being (e.g., The Empowering Local Communities program in Colombia and the Dominican Republic used indicators like access to quality education and improved housing to assess social impact). For the purpose of monitoring and evaluation of cultural and emotional well-being, the programs often used specific tools to measure emotional and psychological impacts (e.g., the Family Wellbeing Community Empowerment Education Program in Australia established and implemented the tool named Growth and Empowerment Measure to evaluate emotional well-being and the effectiveness of addressing fundamental life issues among Aboriginal people).

2. Economic Outcomes. To evaluate the changes in income and employment, indicators often tracked job creation, income levels, and financial stability (e.g., the Desa Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program in Indonesia measured the number of new jobs created, increases in earnings, and improvements in food security). Other indicators were proposed to monitor how programs affected economic opportunities, especially in rural or marginalized communities (e.g., the Tostan’s Community Empowerment Program in Senegal evaluated economic opportunities that were created for women and marginalized groups).

3. Environmental Sustainability. To monitor and evaluate the adoption of sustainable practices, some programs applied certain indicators for measuring the extent to which communities adopted environmentally sustainable practices (e.g., the Community Sustainable Development Empowerment Program in Kenya tracked adoption rates of sustainable agricultural practices and improvements in soil fertility). Engagement in environmental activities was assessed with the use of indicators such as community members’ involvement in environmental conservation and other actions (e.g., the Desa Makmur Peduli Api Community Empowerment Program that measured community engagement in forest management as an indicator of environmental sustainability).

4. Participation and engagement. For the purpose of community involvement evaluation, some programs used indicators that measured the level of community participation in decision-making and planning processes (e.g., the National Community Empowerment Program in Indonesian Villages recorded participation in community consultations as a key indicator of engagement). Several programs also monitored the development of leadership skills and the establishment of community organizations (e.g., the Tostan’s Community Empowerment Program that also measured the promotion of female leadership and grassroots democracy as indicators of social empowerment).

5. Infrastructure development. In terms of physical infrastructure development, several indicators related to the construction and improvement of infrastructure such as roads, buildings, and public facilities were found (e.g., the “National Community Empowerment Program” included road construction as a measurable indicator). For tracking service provision, some programs applied monitoring of the availability and quality of basic services such as healthcare, education, and childcare. For example, the “Empowering Local Communities Program” used access to basic services as the indicator of the program’s success.

6. Innovation and capacity building. This category is represented by a few indicators showing the adoption of innovative practices or technologies (e.g., the LEADER+ program in rural Europe tracked the number of bottom-up initiatives and the implementation of new financing instruments). To monitor and evaluate the capacity-building processes and outcomes, such indicators as the increase in local capacities, knowledge transfer, and skill development were used (e.g., the Community Sustainable Development Empowerment Program in Kenya evaluated the increase in community knowledge and skills as a primary indicator).

During the review process, we have identified approx. 90 indicators that the programs used to monitor and evaluate the sustainability transition and empowerment to be achieved (examples are provided in

Table 3. Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of sustainability impact/transition and empowerment.

Groups of Indicators	Examples (Programs Where the Indicator Was Found)
Awareness raising, participation, and attitude and behavior	- Number of awareness-raising meetings conducted (program 1) - Changes in the target group’s attitudes toward unsustainable practices (program 1) - Amount of people engaged in sustainable forest management practices (program 4) - % of group members actively engaged in community consultation meetings (program 5) - % of communities with development plans implemented via inclusive consultation process (program 5) - % satisfaction among villagers with facilitation services received (program 5) - Improved traditional knowledge in achieving welfare (program 9) - Knowledge of climate resilience acquired (program 13) - Number of/increase in local partnerships (e.g., established local action groups/LAGs) (program 12) - Networking between LAGs and national and transnational cooperation (program 12) - Subjective evaluation of improvements in the participation level (program 16) - Frequency of participation in sustainability-related activities (program 16) - Number of people trained in sustainable natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation (program 17)
Economic	- Rate of adoption leading to decreased dependence on external inputs (program 1) - Sales per unit area as an indicator of increased household income (program 1) - Increase in economic opportunities at a local level (program 3) - New green jobs created (program 4) - Earnings increased (programs 4, 21) - Improved food stock (program 4) - New jobs created in sustainable forest management (program 4) - % of households suffering from the first hungry season (program 5) - % of village funds allocated for economic activities in project villages (program 5) - Improved traditional knowledge in achieving welfare (program 9) - New financing instruments used at the local level—the ‘global grant’ mechanism (program 12) - Number of improved agricultural production programs that enhance food self-sufficiency for households (program 13) - Number of people with increased economic benefits and diversified sources of income (program 17) - Costs reduction of future damage and disruption from flooding and coastal erosion (program 19) - Number of business companies that tested and demonstrated innovative practical resilience actions (program 19)
Environmental	- Production per unit area as an indicator of improved soil fertility (program 1) - Number of adults and children trained as environmental leaders (program 2) - % of farmers who adopted recommended sustainable technologies (program 5) - Number of improved agricultural production programs that enhance food self-sufficiency for households (program 13) - % of farmers that adopted improved agricultural techniques (program 13) - Number of demonstration plots showcasing climate-resilient agriculture (program 13) - Number of strategic action plans developed for DRR (program 13) - Increase in ecosystem services delivery provided by coastal ecosystems (program 18) - Increase in populations of particular coastal species/Number of species (program 18) - Number of development practices respectful to the diverse Mediterranean coastal zones’ (program 18) - Reduced number and consequences of flooding (program 19) - Reduced number and consequences of coastal erosion (program 19)
Social (e.g., related to education, housing, integration, and equality)	- Number of children that have access to quality education and the resources they need to succeed (program 2) - Number of families that have safe and comfortable homes to live in (program 2) - Improvement of literacy and math skills (in%) (program 3) - Amount of people trained (program 4) - Number of women participating in community management (program 5) - Number of women participating in climate resilience activities (program 11) - Number of women participating in climate and DRR decision-making (program 11) - Number of people who participated in flood simulation exercises (program 13) - Number of individuals received training in disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and management (program 13) - % of local government officials trained in improved Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) planning (program 13) - Number of communities that participated in community empowerment-building programs (program 14) - Number of community associations that contributed to social integration and cohesion (program 14) - Rate of participation in Training programs (program 16) - Number of women engaged in participation practices (program 16) - Infrastructure: Roads constructed/km (programs 5, 9) - Infrastructure: Number of transport facilities constructed (program 9)
Health and well-being	- Health prevention in the community through better nutrition (number of related programs) (program 2) - Improved behaviors for the reduction of malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases (program 3) - Reduction in the prevalence of child malnutrition (height for age) (program 5) - Better access to health services through the increase in their number (program 7) - Change in food consumption towards the regional and healthy products (program 9) - Improved access to fresh and healthy food (program 10) - Number of households with improved well-being (program 17)
Governance	- Number of grassroots initiatives established (program 3) - Number/increase in female leadership and engagement in the community and local government (programs 3, 11, 16) - Satisfaction level from beneficiaries regarding improved livelihoods since project start-up (program 5) - Women’s participation in community groups (programs 5, 11) - Number of/increase in ‘bottom-up’ initiatives in planning and execution of decisions (program 12) - -Number of/increase in innovative and integrated or multi-sectoral solutions to rural problems (program 12) - Number of associations containing key local development actors from the public and non-public sectors (program 12) - Number of Community Disaster Management Committees (CDMCs) established (program 13) - Beneficiaries’ level of participation in poverty reduction (program 16) - Number of laws, policies, strategies, plans, agreements, or regulations addressing climate change (mitigation or adaptation) and/or biodiversity conservation officially proposed or adopted (program 17) - Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues (program 17) - Number of land use policies respectful to the diverse Mediterranean coastal zones’ (program 18) - Decrease in the gender gap in environmental management (number of women involved) (program 18)

). We have grouped them into six main thematic areas that include:

(1)

Awareness Raising, Participation, and Attitude and Behavior: to measure the effectiveness of awareness efforts/campaigns, community engagement, and changes in attitude and behaviors.

(2)

Economic Indicators: to track job creation, income levels, and adoption of sustainable practices.

(3)

Environmental Indicators: to monitor ecosystem health and provision of ecosystem services, soil fertility, sustainable agriculture, mitigating climate change, and other environmental issues.

(4)

Social Indicators: to measure access to education, housing, social integration and equality, and disaster preparedness.

(5)

Health and Well-being Indicators: to evaluate improvement in public health, nutrition, access to health services, etc.

(6)

Governance Indicators: to examine grassroots initiatives, policy effectiveness, and climate-related policy adoption.

We can conclude that the evaluation and monitoring indicators used in the programs are diverse and always tailored to the specific goals of each initiative. They ranged from assessing social and economic impacts to monitoring environmental sustainability and infrastructure development. Programs frequently combined quantitative metrics (e.g., the number of jobs created or adoption rates of sustainable practices) with qualitative assessments (e.g., improvements in community well-being or leadership development) to allow more complex evaluation. These indicators were intended to ensure that the programs did not simply achieve their planned outcomes but also contributed to the long-term empowerment and sustainability of the communities they served.

4. Discussion

4.1. Reflection on the Programs’ Main Features

Geographical context. The reviewed programs spanned across multiple geographical regions, with particular focus on rural and indigenous communities, especially in Indonesia, and several countries in Africa and Europe. This distribution corresponds to the global recognition of the need for community empowerment in regions that face significant socio-economic and environmental challenges (e.g., mentioned in the global programs [14,15,16,17]). The focus on rural areas aligns with the broader objectives of many programs reviewed as well as the overall EU (e.g., Rural Pact Community Platform programs, Rural revitalization, etc.) and UN (e.g., FAO work area on Rural Institutions, Services, and Empowerment) agendas on supporting sustainable development of rural areas. Several studies [9,11,36] point out that rural areas should receive more attention when ensuring balanced and sustainable regional development. Most of the reviewed programs are aimed at addressing fundamental issues such as poverty, lack of education, and insufficient access to basic services. The focus on rural areas also highlights the importance of localized approaches, where empowerment strategies are tailored to the cultural and environmental contexts of the communities they serve as well as preserve regional identity, traditional knowledge, and local wisdom [11].

Challenges and objectives. The programs predominantly target a broad range of challenges, with the lack of education and capacity being the most frequently addressed. This emphasis on education is critical, as it forms the foundation for long-term sustainable development by enhancing individual and community capacities to manage resources, participate in decision-making, and achieve self-reliance (that corresponds to [9,11]). The significant focus on capacity building across many programs indicates a strategic approach to empowerment, aiming to equip communities with the necessary skills and knowledge in order to address their challenges independently and increase self-efficiency. That is in line with classical definitions of empowerment (see [26,27,37]). The need for building individual and collective capacities to deliberately transform systems and structures in a manner that is both ethical and sustainable is also highlighted by [2,38,39]. The reviewed programs also focus on addressing the lack of basic services, poor governance, environmental degradation, and economic insecurity. These challenges are interconnected, and the programs’ multi-faceted objectives reflect a comprehensive understanding of sustainability that goes beyond social and economic dimensions and includes environmental concerns. The emphasis on integrating local knowledge and values into these initiatives is particularly noteworthy, as it ensures that empowerment efforts are culturally relevant and sustainable (as also mentioned by [6,11]).

Program structure and implementation. Interestingly, while many programs incorporate a certain number of actions, there is a clear emphasis on capacity building, local knowledge exchange, and community interaction. Thus, the structure of the programs typically follows a phased (sometimes stepwise) methodological approach, beginning with awareness-raising and problem identification, followed by learning, education, and training to build capacity that allows for making decisions collaboratively and to co-create innovative and contextualized solutions based on local knowledge and values. These elements are crucial for the success of empowerment initiatives, as they build the foundation for sustained community engagement and resilience (as also emphasized by [9,23,27,40]). Such stepwise methodology ensures that communities are not only involved in the process of sustainability transformation but are central to it, in turn fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility. That is also demonstrated in other studies [1,10,12,13]) confirming that local communities have a certain capacity to be a part of and in some cases drivers of the local sustainable development. All the reviewed programs are based on the active involvement of diverse actors (including governments, NGOs, and educational institutions, but also international organizations) highlighting the value of co-creation and the collaborative nature of these efforts. It is underlined as a key for merging various types of resources, knowledge, expertise, and influence to achieve the desired outcomes. The iterative nature of these programs, in several cases with continuous monitoring and evaluation, allows for adaptability and responsiveness to changing community needs and external conditions.

Outputs and impact. The outputs of these programs vary, but common themes include increased self-reliance, enhanced decision-making capacities, and improved access to resources. Many programs report significant progress in empowering communities to take control over their development processes, leading to tangible improvements in social, economic, and environmental conditions. The focus on long-term sustainability is evident in the programs’ efforts to build resilience, promote environmental stewardship, and enhance economic security. However, the diversity in how empowerment is defined and implemented across different programs demonstrates that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, successful empowerment depends on a deep understanding of local contexts and the ability to tailor strategies to meet specific community needs. Other studies [7,11,12,41] also stated that community empowerment requires locally adapted (tailored) strategies that address the unique needs and challenges of each community. As a result of our review, we can conclude that the programs which integrate local knowledge and cultural practices can be particularly effective in achieving sustained empowerment, as they are able to resonate more deeply with the communities and foster a stronger sense of ownership and agency. Moreover, almost all the reviewed programs underlined the importance of monitoring and evaluation of both empowerment and sustainability transformation processes and outcomes. For this purpose, the programs developed a set of indicators to not only monitor the changes but also to ensure the efficiency of the program. The need for the development of an appropriate evaluation index system to measure the impact and progress achieved within sustainability transformation was also emphasized by other studies [4,11,42,43,44].

4.2. Empowerment and Sustainable Development/Transformation: How Are They Interlinked?

The role of community empowerment in sustainability transformation. The results indicate that community empowerment is a pivotal factor in the broader sustainability transformation discourse. In contrast to classical sustainability management approaches (e.g., Collaborative Adaptive Management, Community-based natural resource management, Ecosystem-Based Management, etc. [45,46,47], the reviewed programs emphasize the necessity of moving beyond those traditional approaches to sustainability that include top-down elements. In particular, they advocate for a participatory model that integrates local knowledge, fosters social innovations, and builds capacities within communities. Such a model (also described by [6,26,27]) allows researchers and community to jointly co-define local problems/challenges, to co-produce and share knowledge for useful collective actions towards sustainability, especially through establishing partnerships and networks [8,22]. The reviewed programs illustrate that empowered communities are not merely passive recipients of sustainability initiatives but active contributors to the decision-making processes that shape their environments and lives. This finding resonates with the literature that emphasizes the significance of community engagement in achieving sustainability goals [10,12,37]. The ability of local communities to influence sustainability outcomes through their knowledge, values, and behaviors is critical in addressing socio-environmental challenges.

Key characteristics of successful empowerment programs. The analysis of empowerment programs highlights several key characteristics that contribute to their success in promoting sustainability and achieving transformative change(s). Firstly, the programs that were most effective in delivering sustainability outcomes were those that involved a synergetic approach, aligning scientific evidence with community knowledge and participation. This approach not only enhanced the relevance and applicability of sustainability strategies but also fostered a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility among community members. Furthermore, the programs demonstrated the importance of a comprehensive empowerment process that includes individual psychological empowerment, the development of small mutual groups, the formation of community organizations, the building of partnerships and networks, and the undertaking of social and political action. These elements are consistent with the theoretical frameworks that define empowerment as both a process and an outcome [27,30,32]. Looking at the empowerment definitions and processes within the reviewed programs, we can state that they often refer to gaining access to resources as well as the capacity and willingness to mobilize resources to achieve sustainability goals (that corresponds to [28]). Interestingly, this finding is closely related to the understanding of the empowering process by the EEA ([20], p. 69) stating that “… involving citizens in decision-making may help alleviate feelings of alienation and helplessness (that citizens have no influence)”. By addressing multiple dimensions of empowerment, the programs were able to build the necessary capacity within communities to mobilize resources, influence institutions, and actively participate in sustainability decision-making.

4.3. Limitations

Due to insufficient resource availability (many programs are accessible in the local languages only) and time limitations, it was impossible to include all geographical regions and cultural contexts. Moreover, considering the use of a semi-systematic approach for this literature review, we did not collect a large sample of materials. However, to achieve the research goals, we mostly applied the qualitative analysis of the data that does not necessarily need a big sample. Another issue relates to the fact that even though they were called empowerment programs, in reality, some of them were only incremental actions without any particular list of goals, planned activities, expected results, and/or relation to sustainability. Also, a lack of data related to certain indicators for monitoring and evaluation or program elements could have had a particular impact on the obtained results and their interpretation. Additionally, there were difficulties in obtaining the final reports and the data on program assessment due to the fact that some programs were initiated by governmental bodies.

4.4. Remaining Questions and Directions for Future Research

The review of community empowerment programs underlines the vital role that community empowerment plays in driving sustainability transformations. These programs demonstrate a variety of approaches to empowerment, highlighting the importance of engaging local communities in sustainability processes. However, we also reveal several knowledge gaps in the current understanding of how to systematically develop and implement community empowerment programs towards sustainability and resilience. Although there are particular examples of successful empowerment programs, there is still a lack of understanding of their conceptual framework that enables their design, implementation, and evaluation in other local contexts (potential for replication and upscaling). A more structured, easy-to-use, and iterative approach to community empowerment in the context of sustainability will be beneficial for a broader uptake of such programs and their easier implementation.

We argue that there is still a need for continuing research on collecting best practices and monitoring the results of ongoing empowerment programs in order to extend the data and knowledge base on their efficiency, contribution to sustainability, and evidence of empowerment. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation is a crucial part of such programs as it allows for measuring changes, identifying trends, and capturing knowledge to improve programs’ performance and finally demonstrate their transformative impact. The latter was especially underlined by [48] who emphasized the urgent need to focus on interventions with a higher transformative potential for sustainability. As it was stated by several studies [11,42,43,44], the well-developed evaluation framework could serve as objective guidance for policymakers in assessing the effectiveness of sustainable development measures to be implemented. Thus, community empowerment programs in the context of sustainability should give clear evidence of their transformative potential and impact. It means that the programs have to clearly define the expected transformative changes that will result in fundamental, system-wide reorganization of technological, economic, environmental, and social factors to not only achieve the global sustainability goals but also address local challenges and needs.

5. Conclusions

Empowering communities for sustainable development is central to all programs reviewed. In all cases, empowerment goes far beyond involving the community in particular sustainability-related actions or interventions. It also encourages self-reliance and enables gaining a sense of control, ownership, and collective strength that consequently enhances the ability to make informed decisions to act independently. The analysis of the programs reveals that they drive transformative processes which involve addressing local challenges, promoting inclusivity and equity through participatory approaches, and recognizing and enhancing the power that lies within a community. The identified empowerment approaches (e.g., learning, education, and training; capacity building; participation, collective action, and networking; providing access to resources and services; and integration of local knowledge and values and cultural and regional identity) proved themselves as successful in community sustainable development. The outcomes of community empowerment not only result in the improvement of quality of life and well-being but also contribute to societies’ resilience, self-sufficiency, and independence in shaping sustainable and just futures.