Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Community engagement in regeneration: are we getting the point?

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper starts by identifying the intended benefits of community engagement in regeneration according to policy theory. It then adds to the evidence base by assessing to what extent these aims are being achieved through community engagement in the latest cycle of area regeneration in the city of Glasgow. It is based on a qualitative study of residents’ experiences and perceptions of the regeneration planning process in three neighbourhoods undergoing major regeneration. Up to the period beyond regeneration planning, and into the early stages of implementation, community engagement had made contributions to some of the identified aims. However, there were weaknesses in relation to community empowerment beyond regeneration, community cohesion and effective implementation in particular. A series of recommendations are made; of particular importance is the necessity to maintain community engagement throughout the regeneration process, between planning and implementation, in order to ensure that any benefits are sustained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, R. (1999). Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 36(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A., & Sullivan, H. (2003). Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation. Public Administration, 81(2), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergland, A., & Kirkevold, M. (2001). Thriving—a useful theoretical perspective to capture the experience of well-being among frail elderly in nursing homes? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(3), 426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, G., et al. (2008). Community engagement and community cohesion. New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, D., & Taylor, M. (2000). Auditing community participation: An assessment handbook. Bristol/New York: The Policy Press/JRF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, P. (2003). Community involvement in neighbourhood regeneration: Stairway to heaven or road to nowhere? CNR Paper 13. Glasgow and Bristol: Centre for Neighbourhood Research.

  • Burton, P., Goodlad, R., Abbott, J., Croft, J., Hastings, A., Macdonald, G., & Slater, T. (2004). What works in community involvement in area-based initiatives? A systematic review of the literature. London: The Home Office. Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5304.pdf.

  • Communities Scotland. (2007). National standards for community engagement: Users’ guide. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland. Available at: http://www.scdc.org.uk/uploads/standards_booklet.pdf.

  • DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport, the Regions). (2001). Local strategic partnerships. Government guidance summary. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinham, A. (2005). Empowered or over-powered? The real experiences of local participation in the UK’s new deal for communities. Community Development Journal, 40(3), 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinham, A. (2006). Raising expectations or dashing hopes? Well-being and participation in disadvantaged areas. Community Development Journal, 42(2), 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Docherty, I., Goodlad, R., & Paddison, R. (2001). Civic culture, community and citizen participation in contrasting neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38, 2225–2250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, J. (2004). The Egan review: Skills for sustainable communities. London: Communities and Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint, J. (2003). Housing and ethopolitics: Constructing identities of active consumption and responsible community. Economy and Society, 32(3), 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasgow Housing Association Ltd. (2005/2007). Tenant participation strategy. Retrieved at http://www.gha.org.uk/content/mediaassets/doc/GHA_TPS2005.pdf.

  • Glasgow Housing Association Ltd. (2006). Sustainability strategy (p. 16). Glasgow: GHA.

  • Jones, P. (2003). Urban regeneration’s poisoned chalice: Is there an impasse in (community) participation-based policy? Urban Studies, 40(3), 581–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, A., & Turok, I. (2004). Sustainable communities: Dimensions and challenges. ESRC/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Postgraduate Research Programme Working Paper 1, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.

  • Lister, S., Perry, J., & Thornley, M. (2007). Community engagement in housing-led regeneration: A good practice guide. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddock, S. (2005). The leadership role of women in social regeneration in the UK. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2), 128–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Audit Office. (2004). Getting citizens involved: Community participation in neighbourhood renewal. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, F., Shaw, F., & Davidson, G. (2005). ‘On the side of the angels’: Community involvement in the governance of neighbourhood renewal. Local Economy, 20(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, B., & Robinson, E. (2004). The benefits of community engagement: A review of the evidence. London: Home Office Active Citizenship Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Executive. (2006). People and place: Regeneration policy statement. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/02/24092959/0.

  • Social Exclusion Unit. (1998). Bringing Britain together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. London: Cm4045 Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, H. (2004). Foreword. In B. Rogers & E. Robinson (Eds.), The benefits of community engagement: A review of the evidence (Vol. 1). London: Home Office Active Citizenship Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2000). Maintaining community involvement in regeneration: What are the issues? Local Economy, 15(3), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2003). Public policy in the community. The challenge for communities (Chap. 11). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., Wilson, M., Purdue, D., & Wilde, P. (2007). Changing neighbourhoods: Lessons from the JRF neighbourhood programme. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, D. (2003). ‘Making the difference’ in Warsop Vale: The impact of government regeneration policy and community development on a Nottinghamshire ex-mining community. Social Policy and Society, 3(1), 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Pettit, J. (2004). Participatory approaches and the measurement of human well-being. UN University/World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) 2004/57, New York.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all those who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Lawson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawson, L., Kearns, A. Community engagement in regeneration: are we getting the point?. J Hous and the Built Environ 25, 19–36 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9168-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9168-7

Keywords

Navigation