The analysis of the semi-structured interviews reveals that practitioners were also promoting factors relating to the physical appearance of their regeneration projects. The interview results (Table 6.1) show that of the 21 practitioners who took part in the interviews, a little over half, 12 (57.1%) of them were given a very high/high degree of consideration to promoting the social factors relating to the physical appearance or environment of their regeneration projects. Also, the results (Table 6.1) further show that 9 (42.9%) of the 21practitioners were given some/limited degree of consideration to promoting the above mentioned social sustainability factor on their projects. Sampling their views, it became obvious that the majority of practitioners were of the view that doing so was very important for their projects to make the community more attractive. Focusing on promoting the physical environment for one of the practitioners was an opportunity for them to win awards, as he indicated by saying:
…I think the way an area looks needs to be a focus. We recognise the local physical environment as an important part of regeneration. We try to make our projects environment and areas attractive for the long term. So we give very high consideration to the physical environment and we pick up accreditations and awards on the back of it as some of regeneration services we provide which is good for us...
The above comment also goes to confirm the findings obtained in Chapter 5, where it was observed that some of the practitioners were adopting and implementing sustainability factors they believe were helping them to boost their reputations. A thorough review of (Table 6.2) the results obtained from the 193 practitioners who took part in the questionnaire survey phase of the study, further reveals that 74.1% of them were given a very high/high degree of consideration to promoting the physical environment, compared to 25.4% of them who were
178
also given some/limited degree of consideration to promoting the aforementioned social sustainability factor. The results also reveal that 0.5% of them were not given any degree of consideration at all to promoting this social sustainability factor on their projects. However, the results obtained from the questionnaire did not seem to have supported the interview results. A possible reason for this could be the number of practitioners who were involved in both studies. It could also be assumed that the majority of practitioners who took part in the present study were previously involved in the delivery of regeneration projects where the design or the planning gave prominence to the physical sustainability factor. Nonetheless, the nearly 60% and 74.1% very high/high results obtained from the interviews and questionnaire survey, respectively give an indication that the majority of practitioners who are currently involved in sustainable regeneration projects in the UK are either very highly or highly promoting the physical aspects on their projects.
To a large extent, it can be said that the findings are consistent with the literature. From Ball’s (2004) earlier study of community involvement in sustainable regeneration, it was observed that the physical aspect of regeneration was the main focus of the majority of practitioners who participated in his study. One major benefit of improving the physical environment is also about improving the image of the area. A good physical environment can help to attract people, investment and business opportunities in the area (CLG, 2008). Efforts to enhance the local image, to alter external perceptions and re-brand the place in a more positive way are considered as an essential component of a broader regeneration strategy which is aimed at developing a new socio-economic structure of the locality (CLG, 2008). Improving the physical environment SERCS (2011) and HM Treasury (2008) identified as one of the key sustainability objectives sustainable regeneration also seeks to achieve for the communities. This is because the way and manner regeneration projects are delivered has a significant impact on the quality of the physical environment and the social sustainability relationships of the community and individual social wellbeing within an area (SCR, 2008). Hence, it is suggested that sustainable regeneration interventions which are designed and delivered to also ‘achieve the physical regeneration of neighbourhoods are more likely to culminate in measurable and visible’ sustainability achievements (CLG, 2010).
The principles underpinning the sustainable regeneration concept seek to provide a strong collaboration between the social and economic sustainability objectives (CLG, 2010). For example, there is a general consensus that sustainable regeneration is about delivering the
179
socio-economic sustainability benefits to enhance the living conditions of the people and not to contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions (SDC, 2003). According to Bruntland ‘our common future’ (1987), issues relating to social and economic development are mutually reinforcing, which are required to be handled in a concurrent manner. It is said that social and economic problems may combine in certain communities to ‘create or reinforce poverty and deprivation’; in which regeneration initiatives represents a response to address by seeking to promote greater socio-economic prosperity for such communities (Smith, 2006:271). Hence, the next section presents the analysis and discussion on the findings of the economic sustainability factors for the present study.