Executive
Summary
Community-based
solutions can be the most effective solutions when there is a need to deal with
planning and regeneration problems. It is necessary to involve local
communities into the process of planning and regeneration programmes which
would ensure community-based solutions to effectively facilitate community
development. Two brief case studies are provided in this paper to demonstrate
to what extent community involvement and community based solutions can be
effective to address planning and regeneration problems.
Community
based solutions to planning and regeneration problems are solutions that historically
are to focus on improving the community wellbeing. Such the solutions can be
developed and implemented with meaningful participation by the local
communities (Chambers, 1983). But in the recent years community based solutions
have attracted great interests from public policy makers with a shift of the
focus. The resurgence of the interests in the community based solutions has
emphasized on the effectiveness and sustainability of the community development
and regeneration programmes. Greater understanding of the needs of the local
communities is key to successful planning and regeneration programmes. Since
community participation in planning process and regeneration programmes can
provide good opportunities to fully understand the issues and problems of local
communities and engage with local community to work out the most appropriate
solutions to these problems (Chambers, 1983). The support of expertise and specialist
skills for community development and regeneration programmes is equally crucial
as many of the expertise and skills that are required for delivering
regeneration programmes may not be unavailable at local level. Moreover, the funding
organizations for many community and regeneration initiatives are likely to insist
on involvement of expertise into the programmes in order to ensure that the
desired outcome of such the programmes are materialised and value for money.
The
forms of local community involvement are usually local community groups, public
organizations, community activists and local businesses. There is the
participation of local elected leaders who take the lead on raising awareness
among the members of the local community through community forums and encourage
cooperation and participation by the local communities.
Public
participation fosters community ownership and subsequently nurture to ensure
durability and sustained effectiveness of the programmes being established
(Zimmerman and Rapport, 1998). Exclusion on the other hand would usually lead
to isolation by the local communities who would fail to understand how the
community and regeneration programme can improve their wellbeing and would not
provide their invaluable inputs to such the programmes.
Understanding Regeneration
Regeneration
refers to the resolution of community and neighborhood problems which aim to improve
in the physical, environmental, economic, and social conditions of the members
of the defined community (Lavent, 2005). Effective regeneration is based on
accurate assessment of prevailing conditions. They also aim to simultaneously
address community problems relating to physical, environmental, economic, and
social aspects of communities. Regeneration must also take into account of
sustainable development as well as ensure the best and efficient use of the
available resources. Good regeneration programmes should also factor in
changing conditions and the associated implications and then establish reviewing
and monitoring mechanisms to help assess the impact of the programmes on a
continuous basis (McKee, 1997). The definition of clear and precise objectives
will also ensure that regeneration programmes can be delivered and supervised
to achieve desired outcomes by the time of completion.
The
key element in any community based solution is involvement of local community in
the process of planning and implementing programmes. Community involvement in
development and regeneration programmes had drawn attention in 1970s when the most
of the community development programmes had failed (Kearns,
2003). This trend continued during 1980s when the most of government-initiated programmes
aimed at improving education, health and housing in local communities however
turned out to be poor results. The participatory development movement was initiated
by a number of leading scholars such as Chambers (1983) who advocated for
participatory approach to development and regeneration programmes. In this approach,
local communities would be the driving force behind any regeneration programmes
and funding organisations and other stakeholders participating would act as
external agents. This approach was supported by scholars as many of them were
concerned that the conventional ‘top-down’ style of management was both
disempowering and ineffective (Sen, 1999). This view was further reinforced by
the success of various development projects which used a participatory approach
such as India’s
Self-Employed Women’s Association. This approach gained wider support from
influential scholars such as Sen (1985, 1999) whose philosophies played a
crucial role to enhance wide acceptance of this model.
The
top-down model has been gradually replaced by the participatory models that are
used by many of influential development institutions such as the World Bank.
This means that community participation has widely considered as the central
component in the process of planning and implementing development and
regeneration projects. The
World Bank have also emphasised that community based solutions can lead to greater
community empowerment which would in turn improve efficiency in the delivery of
community development and regeneration services (Lavent, 2005). The
exhibition by AusAID also recognised that empowerment of local communities can
enable people to participate fully in the process of community development and
regeneration. Greater empowerment and community participation became one of the
major priorities in tackling poverty and environment issues in deprived neighbourhoods
(Layne, 2000).
The support for participatory approach
is however being challenged due to a lack of evidence that demonstrates the
reduction of reduction of poverty in the deprived neighbourhoods or on overall
empowerment of the local communities. In reality there was not the effective
tool that can be used to assess the level of sustained participation through
the programme process. Moreover, there may be differences of
opinions regarding the meaning and methods of community involvement among
stakeholders which would reduce the impact of local participation. (Kearns,
2003)
According
to Nenno (1997), community based
solutions can take advantage of social capital in local communities to design
and implement effective programmes for addressing identified problems affecting
the communities. Social capital in this context refers to the networks, norms
and values that enable members of the community to work together towards the
realization of defined goals. (Kearns, 2003) The participation by the
communities requires continuous assessment to ensure lasting community support through
the programme process. Monitoring is carried out to assess the level of the
impact upon over the overall community, the level of inclusiveness in the
process of decision making and implementation, and the level of communication
as well as the capacity being built in local communities (Atkinson and Kintrea,
2002)
People
who support community
involvement also tend to argue that the involvement of local community creates
sense of community ownership (Nenno, 1997). This would help ensure that
local community members are able to cooperate fully to achieve the desired
outcome of programmes. Community ownership is also crucial to deliver
regeneration programmes in a sustained fashion. In addition, scholars would argue that given regeneration
and community development aims to improve community wellbeing, local
communities must get involved in planning process as they would know best about
what they really need for (Boateng and Moobela, 2008).
Regeneration
programmes are often costly and require a great deal of resources in order to
succeed. Local communities
are often the source of acquiring the additional resources through their full
participation. Sometimes services are provided mostly at discounted costs or at
no cost at all from local communities (Boateng and Moobela, 2008). These
local communities are often willing to render their services to the project as
volunteers. This helps free necessary resources to be capitalised for programme
implementation. Moreover, local communities are also able to give various
donations to help achieve the goals of the project. All of which can be
considered as benefits of community involvement in planning and regeneration
programmes.
Move towards greater partnerships
and community based solutions
Community
involvement in planning and regeneration process is not just matter of
community wellbeing and the effectiveness of the planning and regeneration
programmes. It also shows on the amount of respect the policy makers have for
the local communities. There is a need for recognition of the community capacity
for addressing their problems and also the trust in their ability to choose
solutions for their own problems. It will be of enhancing the dignity and
self-esteem of the members of local community who would not only feel respected
through consultation and engagement but also take pride in participating in a
programme which aims to be good to them and the rest of the society (Boateng
and Moobela, 2008). Many of the dilapidated neighbourhoods contain persons who
have felt left out of policy participation when important policies are being
developed. If their participations were not part of implementation of these
regeneration programmes, a feeling of apathy and resentments to these
programmes would become becomes quite common. Ignoring the views of the local communities
tends to hurt their feelings and leads to accumulation of negative attitudes towards
the regeneration (Richardson,
2008). Researchers have shown that a majority of community development and
regeneration programmes that tended to fail were those that were implemented
with little or no reference to the local communities during planning and
implementation stages (Layne, 2000). The little involvement of community would
result in the misinterpretation of the problems for local communities and
failure of solutions for the problems. Moreover, even when the problem
definition proved to be accurate, the preferred procedure of addressing the
problems was not accurately discerned that would cause the failure or immature
death of the projects due to their ineffectiveness.
With
the growing emphasis on wider partnership networks and community participation
in regeneration programmes, many governments across the world have undergone
the review of legislations regarding community development and regeneration to ensure
communities to be fully and effectively involved at planning and implementation
stages of these programmes. It is the recognition of this philosophy that has
informed the letter and spirit of the Localism Bill in the UK which aims
to empower local community to make some of the major decisions for their own
communities (Communities and Local Government, 2011). The bill seeks to
establish new rights for communities, empowerment to influence local decisions,
change to conventional decision making processes that has bias towards greater
community involvement. It also allows greater powers and liberties to local
councils (Communities and Local Government, 2011). The fundamental principle of
improving community participation has gained widespread acknowledgement with
focus being shifted towards ways of fully involving communities in more meaningful
ways.
The
Scottish government regeneration policy statement clearly outlines the
importance of involving local communities in planning and implementing
regeneration programmes (Scottish Government, 2006). It learnt that the past
mistakes of the top-down approach to regeneration programmes are to impose solutions
on local communities by policy makers and but not to empower the members of
local communities. The policy statement further observes that community
involvement assures sustainable regeneration and fosters efficient service
delivery. The provisions of physical amenities alone are grossly adequate and
that the real needs of the local community can only be fully understood by the
locals people themselves (Scottish Government, 2006). This is the underlying
principle behind its advocacy of community participation in regeneration.
Arguments against community based
solutions
Most
arguments about community based solutions to planning and regeneration problems
are actually based on community participation, which is a key component of
community based solutions (Atkinson and Kintrea, 2002). Scholars have
emphasized the importance of community participation by learning the past
experiences of the success or failure of regeneration and planning programmes. The
Canadian authorities have been following this principle through established
community participation as an integral part of their urban regeneration (Bell,
1994). However, on the backdrop of these overwhelming endorsements, a significant
number of scholars believe that community participation in some areas could be
detrimental to regeneration outcomes (Kearns, 2003). Critics have also argued in the past that the process
of consensus building with the aim of generating a community-led solution to
the prevailing problems could prove to be more costly than anticipated.
Demographics in many
disadvantaged neighbourhoods is always such that the communities are divided
along various lines especially geographically with each segment having its own
ideas on what the needs of the community are (Atkinson and Kintrea,
2002). Discussions on the
regeneration programmes to be undertaken may therefore be undermined by these
differences leading to waste of quality time that would have been put into
implementation had the project been just decided on by policy makers.
These differences tend to be more accentuated when a regeneration project involves
establishment of certain amenities such as schools and healthcare centres where
various community segments may hold hard-line positions insisting that such the
facilities be established in their immediate neighbourhood. With an escalation
of differences, the process of community involvement may result in dividing
members of the society even further with the perceived losers in the discussion
probably undertaking to undermine the implementation of the programmes (Carley
and Campbell, 2000). These causes may critics to have reservations on public
participation.
The
principle of community based solutions as envisioned by many implies that the
locals own the projects with the professionals and financiers coming in as
external agents. This may seem to be a positive step but it could lead to
serious challenges. In the course of the programme implementation, the
community members may be in direct conflict with the professional teams
regarding how to implement the regeneration and planning programmes which would hence paralyze the programmes.
A partnership between local communities and project organizers on equal basis
lacks the requisite channels of seniority that would make final decision in
case of disagreement (Rhodes, Tyler
and Brennan, 2003). This means a lack of leadership in such the
programmes. Hence, the risk of the project being paralyzed is a reality even
where community involvement has been procured. Moreover, as is common in many
projects, some management team members tend to listen more from professional
expertise than local communities. Where such decisions would upset local
communities, the backlash to the programmes may get worse than it would have
been if they had not been involved in the first place. The argument against or
which have reservations on community participation and community based solution
poses several challenges that need to be deal with. For instance to what extent
community participation should
be carried out to have community based solutions since it can be time consuming
and spending a lot of resources to involve every single member of local
communities at every single stage of regeneration programmes.
Case Studies
Two
case studies are provided to present the importance of participation by local
communities in regeneration program.
Portsmouth
harbour was established as a home of the British Royal Navy with the main
economic activity in the area being shipbuilding and the Navy (Boateng and
Moobela, 2008). However, the economy of the harbour had declined due to the
change of government policy regarding conventional large surface fleet. This
caused a soaring level of unemployment in the area and large derelict lands. Reclamation
of derelict lands and job creation had been central priority in Portsmouth. Extensive
consultations were thereafter carried out among the private sector, public
sector, community representatives, lobbyists, and other stakeholders in order
to seek consensus of the approach to tackling the issues. A regeneration master-plan
was produced that focused on economic revival of the area, redevelopment of derelict
land, encouraging inward investment, and promoting tourism in the area (Boateng
and Moobela, 2008). The funding for implementing the plan was obtained from the
private sector, non governmental organizations, local government and the
Millennium Commission.
It
was also agreed that the contracts would be awarded to the local companies and
the companies at risk that were required to maintain an entirely local
workforce. This was aimed at creating employment and revitalizing the local
economy as the employees in question would in turn consume products from local
producers. The project resulted in reclamation of over 80 hectares of derelict
lands which was used for infrastructure development (Boateng and Moobela, 2008).
The project also enabled to link Portsmouth to Gosport which created greater economic activities between
the two harbours. The project also led to the training of young people in employable
skills hence giving them a lease of life on that front. The new infrastructure
in the area helped attract investments into the area and in turn achieved the
goal of the regeneration plan to revitalize the economy of Portsmouth.
Hulme, Manchester Regeneration
This
case study demonstrate the transformation of a deprived community into an ultra
modern neighbourhood. Hulme was a deprived community based at the centre of Manchester city and had
been an agricultural centre prior to the onset of industrialization.
Industrialization led to haphazard development of Hulme in a manner that
resulted in it being a lowly slum in habited by excluded members of the society
(Moobela, 2008). The initial efforts for regenerating the community had been
purely physical and involved little or no consultation with the local people who
were actually affected by the programme. It has resulted in demolition of
buildings and clearance of structures which resulted greater isolation of local
people. Poor quality buildings had been demolished and new flats were raised
that were interlinked by using Deck-access which aimed to offer better and
neater housing facilities than the previous ones in Hulme. However, this
programme caused other problems to the residents due to structural faults and
over-crowd and congestion in residential areas (HPRC, 1997). The community had
poor access to the houses, high heating costs, poor ventilation and lack of
proper waste disposal facilities. This had led to further social segregation of
the residents in Hulme (HPRC, 1997). Frustration and depression in the area had
led to drug abuse, the increase of crime records and the increase in the number
of suicides.
All
of the challenges and issues in the area led to the launch of the Hulme City
Challenge in 1992. This was a regeneration programme that aimed to empower the
residents and improve community wellbeing (Rapport, Swift and Hess, 1984). The policy
makers learnt the lessons from the past and were keen to have thorough
consultations with the residents and all the other key stakeholders. They acknowledged
that no individual person or institution could claim to know all there was to
know. The Manchester City Council had set up a public body (Hulme Regeneration
Limited) to coordinate regeneration activities. The programme planned for construction
of houses as well as offices, shops, roads, and community facilities which
would bring economic integration of the residents of Hulme. Given the thorough
engagement and empowerment to local community, this programme becomes an iconic
example of regeneration in Britain.
The
two case studies show that wide consultations particularly community
involvement in planning and implementation of regeneration projects are
important for the the success of such the programmes. In the case of Portsmouth, the procedure
proved to be right and the results were realized with optimal use of resources.
On the other hand, the Hulme regeneration had started with no community
involvement which arguably led to the failure of the first phase of
regeneration and waste of the resources. Until the local community members and
other stakeholders were consulted, the regeneration programme was able to achieve
desired outcomes. But two case studies do not show to what extent the local
communities were involved and whether the consultations were the most effective
tool to involve local communities.
Conclusion
Focus
on community based solutions accelerated after the massive failure of many
community development projects in the 1980s across the world. Several arguments
have subsequently been raised on the significance of community based solutions
in planning development and regeneration programs. Proponents have advanced
arguments that since these solutions are aimed at catering for the needs of the
community, their input in the planning and implementation is of utmost
importance due to the fact that it is the local communities that are best placed
to understand their needs. This participation ensures that the solutions
arrived at are effective in solving the community’s challenges. Involvement of
the communities also ensures a sense of ownership of the projects by the local
community. This ownership contributes to the success of the programs as the
community members embrace and utilise established facilities to the optimum.
Community based solutions also tend to focus on the capabilities of individuals
and market players in the local communities with the aim of empowering them to
be in a position to contribute effectively in development and regeneration
projects.
For more theory and case studies on: http://expertresearchers.blogspot.com/
Atkinson,
R. and Kintrea, K., 2002. Area effects: what do they mean for British housing
and regeneration policy, European Journal of Housing Policy, 2 (2),
pp.147-166.
Bell,
G.(1994). Health reform in Saskatchewan.
Health Reports, 6, 211–215.
Boateng, I., and Moobela, C., 2008. Sustainable Participatory
Approaches in Urban Regeneration Processes: Lessons from Portsmouth
Harbour and Inner-City Hulme, Manchester. (Online) Available at: http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2008/papers/ts01b/ts01b_03_boateng_moobela_3049.pdf
Carley,
M., and Campbell,
M., 2000. Regeneration in the 21st Century: Policies into Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Chambers,
R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the First Last. London: Longman
Communities
and Local Government, 2011. Localism Bill
to hand power to the people gains support. (Online) Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/regeneration/1818860
(Accessed 9 March 2011)
HPRC (1997): Inner City Crisis, Manchester’s
Hulme, Manchester:
Hulme Peoples Rights Centre
Kearns,
A., 2003. Social capital, regeneration and urban policy. in Rob Imrie and Mike
Raco (eds.) Urban Renaissance. New Labour community and urban policy. Bristol: Policy Press.
Layne,
J., 2000. Marked for Success??? The Winnipeg Core Area
Initiative’s Approach to Urban Regeneration. (Online). Available at: http://cjrs-rcsr.org/archives/23-2/Layne.pdf
(Accessed 9 March 2011)
Levent,
C., 2005. Sustainable Neighbourhood
Regeneration; For a Creative Economy. (Online). Available at: http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/614.pdf
(Accessed 9 March 2011)
McKee, C., 1977. Innovative
Strategies for the Renewal of Older Neighbourhoods. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies.
Moobela,
C., 2008. From Worst Slum to Best Example
of Regeneration: Complexity in the Regeneration of Hulme-Manchester. (Online).
Available at: http://www.isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/web-content/ISCE_Events/Cork_2005/Papers/Moobela.pdf
(Accessed 9 March 2011)
Nenno, M.K., 1997.
Changes and Challenges in Affordable Housing and Urban Development. Urban
Affairs Annual Review, 46: 1-22.
Rappaport J., Swift C,
Hess R., 1984. Studies in Empowerment. Steps Towards Understanding and
Action. New York:
Hawthorn Press.
Rhodes,
J., Tyler, P. and Brennan, A. 2003. New developments in area-based initiatives
in England:
The experience of the Single Regeneration Budget, Urban Studies, 40, pp.
1399-1426.
Richardson,
L., 2008. DIY Community Action: Neighbourhood Problems and Community
Self-help. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Scottish
Government, 2006. People and Place:
Regeneration Policy Statement. (Online) Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/01145839/6
(Accessed 9 March 2011)
Sen, A. K., 1999.
Development as Freedom. New York:
Knopf
Sen, A.K., 1985. Commodities
and Capabilities. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Zimmermann, M.A., and
Rappaport, J., 1998. Citizen participation, perceived control and psychological
empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology. 16:725-750.
No comments:
Post a Comment