The possible effects of development policies should be considered based not only on their short-term impact but also on their long-term impact on the beneficiaries of these policies and the social fabric of society. Ultimately, these policies aim to improve quality of life, not decrease it. These policies should be crafted and implemented that benefits do not accrue disproportionately to individuals and groups but should benefit society eventually through positive externalities. Therefore, people as the beneficiaries of these policies should have an input in determining how these policies should affect their lives and their
neighborhoods. Their information is quite useful because it emerges from lived experiences. In my experience, as a public officer in the environmental field in the Caribbean, the lived experience was always used by affected citizens facing an
environmental problem in their communities as a riveting defense in the environmental discourse. Weiss (1998) provides insight into the necessity of conducting evaluations of both process and outcome. Furthermore, the author highlighted the necessity for
systematic assessment of process in evaluation. Citizens, have an important role in evaluation of policy actions especially if affected by the decision of the decision makers. Furthermore, evaluation is important because a program may have differential effects on the population.
6.1.1. A Community Vision and Citizens’ Expectations
An important consideration for determining a brownfield site reuse is its compatibility with the community’s vision. An evaluation exercise should be in line with the
community’s vision. This vision is generally incorporated into the existing municipality’s Master Plan, inclusive of pertinent problems in respective neighborhoods. The vision also embodies the general socio-economic, cultural, and environmental, public health goals of the community, geared towards overall community development and improved quality of life. Since a Master Plan should comprise a community’s shared vision, then a brownfield site reuse should be compatible with citizens’ values and expectations for themselves and on a cooperate level. This encourages a sense of pride, commitment, ownership, and investment in the project. Instead of the project being “their project”, it becomes “our project”. This is essential to the acceptability of brownfields redevelopment projects and
the attainment of a sustainable community. A community vision creates a picture in the mind’s eye of a community’s desired features and functionality. To capture this collective vision, it is essential that interested and affected stakeholders reach a stage of heightened awareness as to both a site’s reuse possibilities and the expected and actual difficulties experienced of the chosen municipal methodologies in the sites/s redevelopment
(Bartsch, 2003). This vision must be clearly defined, articulated, formalized in order for it to ‘come alive’ and be accepted and harnessed as the community’s vision. One way of ‘breathing life’ into the community vision and ensuring it goes ‘viral’ is experiencing it through its reality such as in the realization of the site success of an actual brownfield redevelopment (Bartsch, 2003). However, Bartsch cautioned that a sustainable vision at a broader geographical scale may necessitate more than a site-specific success.
6.1.2. Validation for Inclusion of Anecdotes in Evaluation
Renn (1999) sees a valid place for anecdotal knowledge reports in analyzing the possibility of risks; in other words, an overt expression of peoples’ evaluation of their environment. Some brownfields and their redevelopment pose both public and
environmental health risks. This statement is a valid inclusion in this paper because some respondents, through anecdotal reports during the interview, gave some indication as to their feelings observation, and concerns about the impact of the projects on their health and the environment before and after redevelopment. Renn (1999) further stated the importance of this informal body of knowledge to inform the decision process through peoples’ contextual habits, mannerisms, and characteristics relating to the problem. Zimmerman (1990) supports the logic of anecdotal reports in qualitative research because
they add a deeper dimension and understanding of a construct under research. This further enriches and validates the quantitative approach. This research concedes to this view because the anecdotes have provided a better insight into the citizens’ perspectives as to why the redevelopment process and its outcome have generated feelings of
acceptance and non-acceptance. The cognitive and motivational aspects of control unearthed through the quantitative results are also better realized and understood through these reports. Additionally, the critical importance of positive changes in the built
environment to support and enhance a good quality of life in their neighborhood is better realized. Greenberg, (1999) in summarizing the results of studies of neighborhood change and the desired qualities of a neighborhood, reminds us of Maslow’s hierarchy of basic human needs which he believes are critical contributors to achieving citizens’ approval of their neighborhood. This reference is quite pertinent. A neighborhood can and should create a sense of well being and belonging. This becomes even more critical in the case where the individual has significant investment that would preclude migration from the neighborhood. Neighborhood changes are welcome, if they reportedly add to the sense of well being, as revealed in Chapter 5.
This paper aims to discover and highlight citizens reported perspectives of the redevelopment initiatives, and the scope and intensity of their issues, values, and
concerns about the projects during and after redevelopment and how the redevelopment has contributed to the neighborhoods’ quality of life. It is useful for assessing the
strengths and weaknesses of the social outcomes of the initiatives from its inception to its conclusion. Brownfields redevelopment embraces the sustainability concept; therefore
citizens’ perception should be an integral part of the evaluation of the built environment and its effect on quality of life. Marans (2003) endorsed the idea of a critical place for citizens’ perception as a sustainability indicator. Citizens derive cherished social values from planning decisions involving their input. The reality of life is that it is people that reside in neighborhoods, some for their entire lives in the same location, so their anecdotal concerns and evaluation of redevelopment impacts and what is indicative to achieve holistic quality of life should not be ignored.