Skip to main content

Community engagement in regeneration: are we getting the point?

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, access via your institution.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

  11. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

  17. 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 

  18. 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

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

Keywords

  • Community cohesion
  • Community engagement
  • Empowerment
  • Governance
  • Regeneration
  • Sustainable communities
  • Urban policy