Table 9 displays a summary of the responses from the interviews with practising professionals matched to the definitions of successful regeneration contained in the codebook. Summary responses highlighted in red denote the apparent contribution of urban heritage regeneration projects to the concept of successful regeneration. This for the matching of responses from extracted semi-structured interview text to the developed codebook.
Table 9: Summary of Descriptive Codes from Semi-Structured Interviews with Senior Practicing Professionals for Research Objective One. RO1. Investigate the role of heritage assets as a vehicle for successful urban regeneration.
SUC1 Child codes
ID CAT1 MIX1 SAC1 PAR1 LON1 REV1 OCC1 BRA1 VIA1 MEA1 DEL1 REU 1 DES 1
IO1 X X X IO2 X X X I03 X X X I04 X X X X X I05 X X X X I06 X X X X X X X I07 X X X X I08 X X X I09 X X X X X I010A X X X X I010 B I011 X X X X X X I012 X X X X X I013 X X I014 X X TOTAL 7 4 7 2 3 4 8 3 7 4 1 2 4
The findings from the semi-structured interviews reveal that twelve respondents, both from public and private sector organisations, agreed that the core elements contained in the initial codebook were pertinent to a definition of successful regeneration. This apparent convergence of views indicates that a definition of successful regeneration should:
- Act as a catalyst for further regeneration (CAT1) and contribute to creating a mix of uses (MIX1) in a local area.
- Assist in the creation of social and community cohesion (SAC1).
- Create effective partnerships between public and private sectors (PAR1). - Assist in the reversal of economic decline in an area (REV1).
- Understand that successful regeneration is a long-term concept (LON1). The interviewees also appeared to corroborate the findings of the literature review in relation to the difficulty of the measurement of successful regeneration (MEA1). Evidence suggested that this was due to the inappropriateness of conventional methods of measurement. Interviewee IO3, statutory historic advisor, stated that there was a need to engage with the local population to undertake effective measurement. Other difficulties relating to the measurement of regeneration include the measurement of intangible elements of successful regeneration.
The qualitative data analysis provided significant tacit knowledge that can be incorporated to the initial codebook to further add to the definition of successful regeneration. Table nine indicates that eight out of fifteen interviewees from both public and private sector organisations described occupancy as a key characteristic of successful regeneration (OCC1). Table nine also outlines that seven out of fifteen interviewees claimed that a successful regeneration project is required to demonstrate project viability in addition to providing an acceptable level of financial return to project partners. (VIA1).
Three out of fifteen respondents from both public and private sector organisations, displayed in table nine, stated that a key factor was that the project should add to the local brand and generate positive publicity for an area (BRA1). An apparent convergence of views also appeared to be demonstrated in relation to the issue of high quality of design and successful regeneration. Table nine indicates that four out of
fifteen interviewees stated that successful regeneration should be completed a high quality of design (DES1). Two out of fifteen interviewees stated that a key factor of successful regeneration was the reuse of an existing building (REU1).
In relation to responses by organisation type, all private sector development director respondents, I01, I02, I08 and I012 claimed that project viability (VIA1) was a key to successful regeneration. Two out of four private sector development director respondents, I02 and I012, also acknowledged that successful regeneration should contribute to social and community cohesion (SAC1). Engagement in reflection has confirmed that the need to generate financial return (VIA1) for private sector development organisations was evidenced in 2.4.4.1. The position of the respondent being employed within these organisations may have influenced their response to the question as they have reiterated the objectives of their employer. The respondents may have reiterated the objectives of their employer rather than providing their personal view of the issue.
Engagement in reflective analysis reveals that there also appears to be additional recognition by private sector development directors, of the need for successful regeneration projects to contribute to social and community cohesion (SAC1). Codification of this apparent acknowledgement, and subsequent increased awareness of this recognition, by non private sector development stakeholders in these projects, may assist in reducing value tension described in 2.2.6.
There appears to be no absolute convergence between public and private sector respondents on the key criteria to be adopted when evaluating how to establish if urban heritage regeneration project can be considered successful. Key criteria identified by both types of participants included the concepts of occupancy, ensuring long term financial viability and use and enjoyment by the local community. However public sector interviewees also identified the issues of the project acting as a catalyst for further regeneration initiatives and creating a positive economic impact in a location. In contrast, private sector participants highlighted as key criteria the issues of deliverability and changing peoples’ perception of an area.
The findings reveal the potential contribution of heritage assets, within urban regeneration projects, to contribute to the concept of successful regeneration. It was
claimed that these projects act as a catalyst for further regeneration (CAT1), contribute to the creation of a mix of uses (MIX1) and assist in the creation of community cohesion (SAC1). In addition the qualitative data analysis revealed that engaging in heritage regeneration can create effective partnerships between private sector and public sector organisations (PAR1). These projects appear to assist in the reversal of economic decline (REV1), create occupancy in buildings (OCC1), add to a local brand (BRA1) and create viable regeneration projects. Heritage regeneration can assist in the reuse of an existing building (REU1) and deliver project inclusive of a high quality of design (DES1). The resultant codebook has been amended and is shown in Table 10 below:
Table 10: Updated Codebook following Completion of Qualitative Content Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews with Senior Practicing Professionals for Research
Objective One. Research Objective PARENT
CODE
CHILD CODE
DESCRIPTION Investigate the role of
heritage assets as a vehicle for successful urban regeneration. SUC1 CAT1 MIX1 SAC1 PAR1 LON1 REV1 OCC1 BRA1 VIA1 MEA1 REU1 DES1 Catalyst Mixed Use
Social and Community cohesion Partnership
Long term
Reversing economic decline Occupancy
Adds to local brand
Produces a viable financial return Measurement of success
Reuse
High Quality Design Source. Own development
The codebook will be used as the basis to complete qualitative content analysis of key documents.