evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Quiero Mi Barrio — Chile's National Neighbourhood Recovery Programme and What Residents Say Lasted

Chile · Santiago · See the Chile profile · See the Santiago profile

Top 74% 57/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2006 Chile's housing ministry has funded resident-led renewal of deprived neighbourhoods; 520 neighbourhoods reached by 2017, but evaluation is qualitative and residents flag an abrupt exit and weak links to health and education services.

Details

Promoter
Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning (MINVU), Chile
Period
2006–present
Keywords
neighbourhood regeneration, participation, public space, social cohesion

Description

Quiero Mi Barrio (QMB, later renamed Programa de Recuperación de Barrios) was launched in 2006 by Chile's Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning to improve quality of life in segregated, deteriorated neighbourhoods. Each neighbourhood moves through stages: a cooperation agreement with the municipality, a participatory diagnosis with a resident Neighbourhood Development Council and a signed neighbourhood contract, execution of physical works and social-management plans, and a joint closing evaluation.
Scale: a 2023 peer-reviewed paper reports that by 2017 the programme had intervened in 520 neighbourhoods across 15 regions, carried out 3,691 works and benefited 1,132,714 residents.
Evidence: a qualitative study (18 focus groups and 27 interviews, fieldwork 2018–2019, eight neighbourhoods treated 2012–2015) found residents valued new lighting, community centres and walkable spaces, and reported more sport and play, a stronger sense of safety and revitalised social networks. A Participedia case on Santa Adriana (Santiago) reports resident ratings on a 1–7 scale rising, e.g. cleanliness 4.1 to 4.9 and coexistence 4.3 to 5.1, with participation up only from 4.0 to 4.3.
Cautions: no national quantitative impact evaluation was found. Residents cited vandalised works, weak coordination with health, education and aid agencies, the abrupt end of the programme, and drug trafficking, ageing and local leadership conflicts limiting the effects. The qualitative study itself was dominated by key informants and could not hold some groups for safety reasons.

Read the full analysis: https://revistas.usp.br/rsp/en/article/view/209665

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful