A plethora of policy systems and strategies have been developed over the years for the purpose of providing an impetus for sustainable development and regeneration (Lam et al., 2011; Van Bueren and De Jong, 2007). Different objectives have underlined these regeneration policy systems and strategies. While some of them have focused on delivering sustainable development objectives, others have placed emphasis on the achievement of different sets of objectives. The main objectives of the UK government’s sustainable
30
development policy for instance, has focused its strategies on addressing the underlying social and economic challenges and providing support for people particularly in the most deprived communities, to access new opportunities in a number of areas (CLG, 2008). These policies have formed the basis on which many organisations, including the construction industry
organisations have fashioned out their sustainability policies to articulate and drive sustainability issues within their organisations.
The introduction of such government policy systems has played a major role in directing many regeneration activities, both at the national and local levels in the UK. Many organisations operating at these levels have aligned their sustainability policy objectives to the policy objectives set out by such government policy systems. However, the performance of these policy systems has been undermined by a number of factors. The dynamic nature of sustainability has often been cited as the possible reason, coupled with the scarcity of financial resources (DBIS, 2013) as well as conflict of interest by organisations who attempt to promote sustainability issues within their organisations. This has resulted in many organisations’ inability to fully translate their sustainability policies into practice.
In the construction industry for instance, sustainability has been promoted on a number of sustainable regeneration projects, but with limited sustainability benefits for the intended beneficiaries (Van Bueren and De Jong, 2007). Numerous sustainability policies of many organisations currently promoting sustainability in the construction industry are based on weak sustainability policy systems, and in most cases, on wrong sustainability principles (Van Bueren and De Jong, 2007; Carter and Fortune, 2007). The delivery of the present sustainable regeneration projects can also be seen as the direct product of the policy systems currently in practice. It is believed that sustainable regeneration objectives can only be well promoted if the policy systems are anchored on strong sustainability policies and when such policies are pivoted on sustainable development objectives (Carter and Fortune, 2007). In that sense, the issues relating to conflict of interest as well as resources can then be relegated to the background.
Consequently, in attempt to define the scope of sustainable regeneration projects, it is crucial that adequate consideration is given to the policy systems meant to drive the sustainability aspects of the projects (CLG, 2010). To a very large extent, sustainability content in any construction project can be well promoted and regulated when the organisations’
31
sustainability delivery strategies are based on sound sustainability policy systems (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). In acknowledging the importance of a strong sustainability policy system, Kaatz et al., (2006) called on policy makers and construction industry practitioners to redefine their sustainability policy objectives to better reflect the current issues and challenges of sustainability, both at the conceptual and operational levels of practice. Effective sustainability policy systems, according to Nicol (2011), are crucial in setting the necessary conditions that provide the vehicle for a positive change.
Many authors and reports have also acknowledged the importance of a sustainability policy for the successful promotion and delivery of sustainability benefits, and in particular the socio-economic ones (United Nations, 2010; Pitt et al., 2009; Colantonio, 2008; CLG, 2008). As part of the UK government’s sustainability policy initiatives to improve on sustainable regeneration programmes, between 2007 and 2011, over £13bn was committed in programmes that were meant to contribute heavily to the promotion and delivery of socio- economic regeneration benefits (CLG, 2008). In their recent work on urban regeneration, Lombardi et al., (2011: 81) have argued that adding the ‘sustainability concept to urban regeneration policy’ can be helpful to provide a platform towards the promotion and delivery of a wide range of sustained socio-economic benefits for communities. Apparently, to deliver a wide range of improved socio-economic sustainability outcomes to benefit various groups of people for the long term, calls a for sustainable regeneration policy system which considers a broad range of sustainability issues. It is argued that it is only when such varieties of issues are considered and factored into the policy systems, that long term social and economic sustainability benefits can be delivered in a holistic manner, to meet the needs of a variety of people.
A view held by authors such as Carpenter, (2011); Carter and Fortune, (2007) and Smith (2006) is that sustainable construction should not only focus on addressing the environmental sustainability features, but they should also consider the broader issues that relate to the delivery of the social and economic sustainability factors of the projects as well. Doing so, in their view, will enable sustainability-oriented projects to deliver on a range of socio-economic sustainability benefits. It is asserted that the improvement of sustainability content in construction projects goes beyond just using sustainability materials to deliver the projects. It is also about getting the right sustainability policies and strategies in place to deliver all the sustainability aspects of the projects.
32
In terms of sustainable regeneration, for the projects to deliver such a wide range of socio- economic benefits for different groups of people, the policy systems would have to be designed to promote a variety of sustainability factors such as; employment opportunities, education and training, health and safety, security, and housing as well as an improvement to the physical environment where the projects are sited (Reyes et al., 2014; East Sussex Economic Development Strategy (ESEDS), 2012; Nicol, 2011; Carpenter, 2011; Winston, 2009; Pitt et al., 2009; CLG, 2008; HM Treasury, 2007; Colantonio, 2007; Smith, 2006). According to Dixon (2006), the creation and retention of employment opportunities as well as the promotion of other welfare factors such as health and safety and security, and access to affordable housing, is one important means to achieve successful regeneration. It is believed that the attainment of these sustainability factors will create an enabling environment to attract new businesses and inward investment, and also promote socio-economic sustainability growth of the entire community, leading to a return on investment for providers (Pitt et al., 2009; CLG, 2008; Yau and Chan, 2008; Treasury, 2007).
Working towards a greater achievement of sustainable regeneration objectives requires a greater consideration and promotion of social and economic sustainability factors, since achieving them will have a profound impact on all facets of societal life (CLG, 2008). While the main objective of economic regeneration is concerned with the improvement of people’s economic prosperity, social regeneration on the other hand, is geared towards addressing issues relating to peoples’ welfare. Promoting economic factors such as; sustainable jobs and inward investments to boost economic growth become very important for regeneration projects. Likewise, social factors involving the promotion of skills development, health, safety and security and housing are crucial to enable people to feel safe and happy to live in a particular area (SDC, 2003).
Empirically, the provision of sustainability factors such as employment and education and training is seen to be correlated to economic growth (Spangenberg, 2005). A study conducted by Mak and Peacock (2011), in which they explored the sustainability concept using a case study approach in the UK, USA and Australia, also found strong linkages between social and economic sustainability factors in the areas of affordable housing, skills development and job/employment opportunities. Many other studies have also established the existence of such strong linkages between the social and economic sustainability factors, considered as the bedrock of attaining a successful sustainable regeneration (Pitt et al., 2009; Smith, 2006;
33
Economic Scrutiny Committee (ESC), 2006). The ESC report (2006), for example, has argued that providing opportunities to advance the education and skill requirements of individuals has the potential to build such individuals capacities for sustainable employment. Also by securing sustainable employment, such individuals are then empowered to contribute to the economic growth of their localities (ESC, 2006). A subsequent work by Nwokoro and Onukwube (2011) has also revealed that improving the education and skills requirements of a workforce would potentially lead to the enhancement of their skills capacity in the delivery of sustainability objectives of projects. In echoing the point further, One NorthEast, (2009: 14), suggested that the development of individuals’ ‘skills characteristics are crucial to their ability to access employment opportunities and, this, in turn, strongly influences their decisions about where to live and work’.
Ensuring a safer and sound environment where people are happy to live, also calls for regeneration policies to promote the physical environment and outlook of the projects (Smith, 2006). Doing so will not only make the local environment attractive, but will also help to attract inward investment and enable local businesses to thrive (HM Treasury, 2007; Smith, 2006). It is suggested that areas that are regenerated should attract and retain investment and promote sustainable economic growths of such areas (ESC, 2006). Some other sustainability factors that can impact on the physical attractiveness of an area are the provisions of decent and affordable housing, as well as other public facilities and services (CLG, 2008; Yau and Chan, 2008; Smith, 2006). The promotion of decent housing alongside other public facilities and services, according to Carpenter (2011) and Hills (2007) can impact on the physical appearance of the area, serve as a catalyst for local employment, and drive the local economy towards a sustainable growth. A good housing policy can be a major driving force for wealth creation and investment in people and the community as a whole (Abidin, 2013). In a study conducted by Dixon (2006) on sustainable development and brownfield regeneration, the majority of housing regeneration practitioners who participated in the study were of the view that the provision of housing with its associated facilities and services, was an important factor in achieving successful sustainable regeneration for the people. Similarly, the East Sussex Economic Development Strategy (ESEDS, 2012) has also identified housing as a major determinant of sustainable regeneration. The strategy went on to indicate that, giving adequate attention to the characteristics of the local housing supply, type (mix), and price (affordability) was a major step towards addressing the socio-economic disparities among the
34
communities. Given such adequate consideration, the strategy also believed it was vital in raising the standard of life and well-being for people and their communities.
Attempts to deliver sustainable regeneration that ensures a higher quality of life and a more productive society for high and stable socio-economic growth, also requires adequate consideration of health and safety factors by sustainable regeneration policy systems. ‘The construction industry has a huge contribution to make to our quality of life’ (DETR, 2000: 7). This can be manifested in the kind of policy and approach the industry adopts to ensure adequate health and safety of its workforce and the society. Apparently the UK government’s sustainability policy system recognises the crucial role health and safety plays, by setting requirements to regulate health and safety issues in and around construction projects (DETR, 2000). The Rethinking Construction Committee Report (1998), chaired by Egan, raised concerns about the consequence of a poor health and safety record of construction activities and the potential dangers such poor records pose to the entire construction industry towards the promotion of sustainable construction. In response to such poor records and the recognition of the possible effects on sustainable regeneration, the Review of Sustainable Construction Strategy for sustainable construction emphasised the need for a ‘greater uptake of training programmes’, to improve skills and knowledge, and to increase the ‘retention rates of skilled workers within a safer industry’ (CLG, 2007: 101). It is believed that promoting good health and safety practices adequately and ensuring the right working environment will enable people to attain their social sustainability objectives (Nwokoro and Onukwube 2011). The UK sustainable regeneration policy drivers and the literature sources are shown in Table 2.1 below.
35
Table 2.1: UK sustainable regeneration policy drivers and literature sources
Regeneration policy drivers Literature sources
To provide decent and affordable housing and facility
Clapham, 2014; Abidin, 2013; ESEDS, 2012; Mak and Peacock, 2011; Nicol, 2011; Carpenter, 2010; Pitt et al., 2009; Hill, 2007; Colantonio, 2007; Dixon, 2006; Smith, 2006
To improve the physical outlook Reyes et al., 2014; ESEDS, 2012; Nicol, 2011; Carpenter, 2010; CLG, 2008; Hill, 2007; Colantonio, 2007; Smith, 2006
To improve health, safety and security
Clapham, 2014; ESEDS, 2012; Nwokoro and Onukwube 2011; Nicol, 2011; NorthEast, 2009; Dixon, 2006; Smith, 2006; DETR, 2000
To improve public services and facilities
Clapham, 2014; Carpenter, 2010; CLG, 2008; Yau and Chan, 2008; Hill, 2007; Smith, 2006
To provide education and skills training
Clapham, 2014; ESEDS, 2012; Nwokoro and Onukwube, 2011; Mak and Peacock, 2011; Nicol, 2011; NorthEast, 2009; Pitt et al., 2009; CLG, 2007; Colantonio, 2007; ESC 2006; Smith, 2006; Spangenberg, 2005
To improve the local economy and create wealth
Clapham, 2014; Abidin, 2013; Carpenter, 2010; Pitt et al., 2009; CLG, 2008; HM Treasury, 2007; Hill, 2007; ESC, 2006
To promote economic development and growth
Clapham, 2014; Nicol, 2011; Carpenter, 2010; Pitt et al., 2009; HM Treasury, 2007; Hill, 2007; Smith, 2006; ESC, 2006; Spangenberg, 2005
To generate profit Pitt et al., 2009; CLG, 2008; Yau and Chan, 2008; HM Treasury, 2007
To create employment opportunities Clapham, 2014; ESEDS, 2012; Mak and Peacock, 2011; Nicol, 2011; Carpenter, 2010; Pitt et al., 2009; NorthEast, 2009; Hill, 2007; Colantonio, 2007; Smith, 2006; ESC 2006; Dixon, 2006; Spangenberg, 2005
To promote investment in local businesses
Nicol, 2011; Pitt et al., 2009; CLG, 2008; HM Treasury, 2007; ESC, 2006