LARGE-SCALE URBAN REGENERATION
AND SUSTAINABILITY:
REFLECTIONS ON THE ‘BARRIERS’ TYPOLOGY
WORKING PAPER 05/01
Rossa Donovan1∗, James Evans1, John Bryson1, Libby Porter2 and Dexter
Hunt3
1School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham
2Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham 3School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham
*Corresponding author
R.G. Donovan, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences,
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT. Tel: +44 121 414 5523; E-mail: [email protected]
ISBN: 07044 25262
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council grant no. GR/S20482/01.
© The University of Birmingham, 2005.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The typology of barriers............................................................................................................. 3
(i) Perceptual barriers ............................................................................................................ 4
(ii) Institutional barriers ......................................................................................................... 5
(iii) Economic barriers ........................................................................................................... 6
Birmingham’s Eastside: Planning for Sustainability ................................................................. 7
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 11
Barriers to Achieving Sustainability in Eastside...................................................................... 12
Perceptual Barriers ........................................................................................................... 14
Institutional Barriers......................................................................................................... 16
Economic Barriers............................................................................................................ 19
Barriers Revisited..................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 23
References ................................................................................................................................ 24
1
Large-scale Urban Regeneration and Sustainability:
Reflections on the ‘Barriers’ Typology
Abstract:
This paper explores the barriers to large-scale sustainable urban regeneration. Recent
research has identified a clear typology of institutional, perceptual and economic ‘barriers’ to
sustainability within regeneration projects. We provide a detailed review of this typology in
light of recent research in the area, and then apply it to a real-time urban regeneration
programme in the UK, currently being undertaken in Birmingham’s Eastside district. A
reflexive methodology was deployed that incorporated the views of practitioners into
questionnaire and interview design through a series of focus group meetings. The resulting
data suggest that the typology fits the concerns of actors within the Eastside programme, and
supports recent research in this area that emphasises the over-riding importance of economic
factors within regeneration partnerships. A key theme that emerges is the tendency for actors
to adopt tried and tested patterns of behaviour in the face of uncertainties surrounding the
interpretation and incorporation of sustainability into their agendas. This risk-averse
behaviour is highlighted by the barriers approach, which pre-figures failure by assuming some
ideal end-point for sustainability. We argue that the debate needs to shift from descriptive
barriers to more prescriptive enablers by focusing upon the potential opportunities that the
challenges of sustainable development offer. This approach is developed in a follow-on
paper.
Introduction
Sustainable development and urban regeneration constitute the two main strands of current
urban policy in the UK (DETR, 1999a; 2000). Their successful implementation is seen as
critical if UK cities are to attract economic development within a global context (Hudson,
2001; Oatley, 1998; Gibbs et al., 1996), and for the creation of sustainable civic and
commercial spaces capable of supporting socially, culturally and ecologically vibrant
populations (ODPM, 2004). Four aims support the British Government’s sustainable
development strategy:
2
“social progress which recognizes the needs of everyone; effective protection of
the environment; the prudent use of resources; and, the maintenance of high and
stable levels of economic growth and employment. These aims should be pursued
in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy
that delivers high levels of employment, and a just society that promotes social
inclusion, sustainable communities and personal well being, in ways that protect
and enhance the physical environment and optimise resource and energy use”
(ODPM, 2005: 2).
This vision of an all inclusive sustainable development is an ideal that requires major
alterations in the activities and perceptions of national and local government and private
sector organisations. Established working practices, technologies and perceptions of
profitability undermine attempts to integrate sustainability practices into urban development
schemes. This paper explores the barriers to sustainable development in the UK through a
detailed case study of Eastside, Birmingham, a major urban regeneration scheme.
Under an umbrella of policy initiatives the British planning system has been charged with
ensuring that future urban regeneration is sustainable (DETR, 1998; 1999b; DTLR, 2001).
The framework for achieving this has been large-scale, long-term design-led planning,
leading to the creation of urban regeneration teams; new configurations of public, private and
NGO groups that extend traditional planning functions spatially and temporally, requiring
high levels of collaborative planning (Healey, 1997) between organisations with different
characteristics, motivations, and resources.
However, a growing body of research suggests that the policy goals of urban regeneration and
sustainable development are failing to be integrated in practice (Couch and Denneman, 2000).
Within the literature this failure has most often been interpreted through the notion of
‘barriers’ to sustainability within regeneration projects. A clear typology of barriers has been
identified in recent research: perceptual (Cooper and Palmer, 1999), institutional (Rydin et al.,
2003) and economic (Gibbs et al., 2002). Existing studies have tended to explore one type of
barrier rather than explore all three types as they operate in the same regeneration project.
This paper applies this typology of barriers to a real-time urban regeneration programme in
the UK, currently being undertaken in Birmingham’s Eastside district. The so-called
‘Eastside’ project is a particularly suitable test case, representing a large-scale, long-term
3
development that is explicitly aiming to be a flagship example of sustainable regeneration
within the European context. We review the typology of barriers to sustainable urban
regeneration, and then explore the Eastside case study.
The final section reflects upon the typology of barriers. We argue that while it captures the
range of obstacles to sustainability identified by practitioners, it tends to highlight failures to
achieve some ‘ideal’ end-point for sustainability. By focusing upon the potential opportunities
that the challenges of sustainable development offer, the debate shifts from descriptive
barriers (and the language of failure) to more prescriptive enablers that are explored in a
follow-on paper (Donovan et al., forthcoming).
The typology of barriers
The dimensions of sustainability set down by the UK Government in its Sustainable
Development Strategy address social progress, protection of the environment, prudent use of
natural resources, and maintenance of stable economic growth and employment (DETR,
1999a). Moffatt identifies four related aspects: the elimination of poverty and deprivation; the
conservation and enhancement of natural resources; a broadening of the concept of
development to include social and cultural aspects; and the unification of economics and
ecology in decision-making (1995, p.27). This integrated and holistic concept has become
widely accepted, diverging from earlier definitions which focused more centrally on
achieving environmental goals (Elliott, 1994). Achieving sustainable development in UK
cities, then, requires policy and practical innovation that sits at the nexus of environmental
protection, social justice and economic progress. It is this notion of sustainability that
underpins this paper.
Barriers to achieving sustainability range from complex, cross-cutting (indeed, philosophical)
issues, through the specificities of governance and inter-organisational relations, right down
to the detailed practicalities of delivering the built form. Although each urban regeneration
project is in many ways unique in terms of the place in which it occurs, the specific problems
and aims involved, and the constellation of actors engaged in the project, the picture of
barriers to sustainability that emerges from the literature is remarkably consistent. For
example, the three barriers identified in the introduction (institutional, perceptual, and
4
economic) from high profile projects in the UK were identified in a study that examined the
barriers to implementing the ‘Clouds of Change’ initiative in Vancouver. Through interviews
with government officials and citizens, Moore (1994) identified three categories of barrier:
perceptual/behavioural; institutional/structural; and economic/financial. This consistency in
the identification of these categories is partly explained by the institutional frameworks that
support and drive the development process. These frameworks include perceptions of
profitability held by long-term property investors as well as acceptable profits margins
expected from the development process (Bryson, 1997). These categories provide a common
means of conceptualising barriers to sustainable development and are used in this paper to
reflect upon the barriers to achieving sustainability in Eastside. However, closer examination
of the typology of barriers reveals a number of complexities within each.
(i) Perceptual barriers
Perceptual (and behavioural) barriers to implementing sustainability concern definitions and
information, as well as deeper socio-cultural issues. Some authors point to a lack of
knowledge about and understanding of sustainability issues, both within decision-making
organisations, and the wider population (Moore, 1994; Mittler, 1999; Vigar, 2000). Lack of
information about key environmental issues can leave people unable to translate large
environmental issues into necessary alterations in personal or organisational behaviour. In a
study of environmentally sustainable transport planning in the UK, Vigar found that some
politicians were simply unaware that road schemes had environmentally detrimental effects
(Vigar, 2000). Other authors have noted a disconnection between people’s individual lives
and behaviours, with wider and even global problems, leaving people disempowered to act in
the face of such challenges (Moore, 1994; Mackay, 1999).
The sheer plethora of definitions of sustainability (one study counted more than 70 in
circulation – see Elliott, 1994) gives rise to debate and division, even amongst those who
advocate sustainability principles, about exactly what should be achieved and how.
Definitions range from the broadly conceived ideas encapsulated in the Brundtland report
(WCED, 1987), to more specific and technical meanings (Mebratu, 1998). The former are
useful to enable a greater integration of the different pillars of sustainability, yet they are
difficult to measure and open to interpretation (Pezzoli, 1997). The latter are useful to enable
implementation and monitoring of specific changes, yet they tend to reduce a complex
5
concept to a set of technical and proscriptive solutions. One schism particular to public-
private collaborations is that between ‘sustainable development’, more often used by private
industry as it retains an emphasis upon development, and ‘sustainability’, more often used by
public bodies, as it emphasises integration (Robinson, 2004).
This also points to a much deeper problem than merely lack of information to citizens and
governments. Here, failure to act is seen less as a problem of knowledge deficit, than one of a
gap between knowledge and action. Sustainability, as many authors argue, is integrally linked
to everyday production and consumption processes and indeed the way we conceptualise and
value growth (see Rydin, 2002; Reid, 1995). If achieving sustainability requires fundamental
changes to those social values and methods of social organisation and consumption, then this
challenges entrenched social and economic power relations, which are even more difficult to
change than individual behaviours. Much of this entrenchment is built into the economic
system. Most retail, office and industrial buildings in the UK are created by property
development companies and owned by institutional investors (life insurance companies,
pension funds etc). This means that developers’ profit margins and the long-term returns on
property investments are largely determined by the perceptions and actions of key
institutional investors (Bryson, 1997). Altering these perceptions is difficult as the developers
and investors must safeguard the interests of their shareholders as well as other key
stakeholders and are only able or willing to incorporate sustainable elements into the
development process as long as they do not impact on profit margins.
(ii) Institutional barriers
A key barrier to achieving sustainability that has been identified in many studies is the
requirement to integrate objectives and activities between and within institutions. The
majority of public and private sector institutions have been established to undertake a discrete
function rather than to support inter-linkages between functions (Moore, 1994; Mittler, 1999).
As a result, it is notoriously difficult to achieve inter-departmental, let alone inter-
organisational, cooperation in order to implement urban sustainability outcomes. Pinfield
noted that integrated decision-making ‘can challenge the status quo and run counter to the
power structures and cultures of many political institutions’ (Pinfield, 1996). A study of
implementation of sustainability policies in the City of Edinburgh identified that different
departments within the council had diverging agenda (Mittler, 1999). This problem has been
6
examined in terms of the capacity of institutions to cooperate and learn from one another (de
Magalhaes et al., 2004), and in terms of the governance of organizations that may facilitate or
hinder cross-institutional working in urban regeneration (Davies, 2004). Building upon
Rhodes’ work in the mid-nineties (1996), this debate has most recently focused upon the
importance of the state, and whether projects are best viewed as partnerships driven by local
government (Davies, 2002), or networks of actors operating relatively autonomously from the
state (Jones and Evans, forthcoming).
The cultures of organisations have also been found to operate as barriers to achieving
sustainable solutions. In a study of Hackney Borough Council, Jones (1996) found that an
entrenched ‘culture of blame’ within the organisation meant that officers were unwilling to set
targets for fear of retribution if they were not achieved. In local authority institutions political
support for change and innovation is crucial (Jones, 1996; Brugman, 1996). Further, as
Moore (1994) observed, the range of competing issues faced within organisations, and the
limitations of their jurisdiction, often serves to limit the extent to which innovation and
change can occur in order to allow more sustainable solutions and policies to emerge.
Public participation in processes that attempt to achieve sustainable urban development is
widely seen as crucial to the very achievement of sustainability itself. This is because
sustainability is by nature a set of value choices, and thus inherently political (see
Throgmorton, 2003; Beauregard, 2003; Rydin, 1995; Reid, 1995; Owens and Cowell, 2002;
Moffatt, 1995; and Sandercock, 2003). Some studies have noted that increasing alienation of
the public from political institutions and processes is serving as a major barrier to achieving
sustainability, because genuine public participation is increasingly difficult to engender when
there are weak linkages between governments and their constituents (Pinfield, 1996; Moore,
1994).
(iii) Economic barriers
These constitute some of the most tangible barriers to achieving sustainability, and range from
questions of structure through to the detail of funding arrangements and availability. The
growing disparity between rich and poor, in both global and local contexts, is highlighted as a
key barrier to achieving sustainability. Studies have shown that the relative wealth and
economic growth potential of a particular place can affect how sustainability is actually
7
defined (Counsell and Haughton, 2003). Other commentators also point to this factor
underpinning a greater concentration on economic growth at the expense of other aspects
(such as redistribution of wealth, or protection of the natural environment) (Pinfield, 1996;
Mittler, 1999). The health of the economy (whether national or local) is viewed by most
politicians as a fundamental policy issue, one that ultimately determines voting patterns
(Vigar, 2000). This further fuels an over-emphasis on economic development at the expense
of other aspects of sustainable development (Cooper and Palmer, 1999).
Significant financial barriers to implementing sustainability also arise, particularly in the way
arrangements for funding are made and the small amount of (usually public) funds available
to implement innovative solutions (Moore, 1994). Mittler (1999) found that groups seeking
to implement practical actions for sustainability were impeded because they would have to
compete against each other for scarce funds. Often, funding would be withdrawn too early, or
activities would have to cease because of funding insecurity. Smerdon et al. (1997) reported
that there were more than 66 barriers to the implementation of sustainable construction in the
UK. In the private sector especially, perceptions about the higher cost of sustainable
construction options often weighed against their decisions, such that more conventional
models are preferred. The bottom line often means that delivering enhanced sustainable
construction requires alterations to the mandatory regulatory mechanisms (planning and
building regulations) that are wrapped around the development process.
Birmingham’s Eastside: Planning for Sustainability
The three barriers must be understood as a simple conceptual framework for identifying
rigidities in the development process that undermine sustainability. These three barriers are
interrelated in complex ways and, in many cases, it is difficult to isolate perceptional barriers
from institutional and economic ones as all three barriers are combined in different ways
depending on the timing and nature of the development or regeneration project. Eastside
provides an unusual opportunity to explore these barriers in practice. Eastside is an urban area
of 170 hectares (420 acres) located immediately to the east of Birmingham’s city centre and
newly developed Bullring retail precinct (Figure 1). Until recently, this predominantly
industrial area had remained largely untouched by the regeneration initiatives undertaken in
Birmingham’s western quarters (ICC, Brindley Place and the redeveloped Jewellery Quarter)
8
since the 1980s (Bryson, 2003). Whilst heavy industry continues to dominate land use and
activity in the area, which has very few residents, Eastside bears the scars of de-
industrialisation and economic restructuring. The area includes the heritage precincts of
Digbeth and Deritend, and the canal system and River Rea are also prominent features of the
urban fabric (Figure 1).
Sustainability became part of the agenda for Eastside through the efforts of key Council
officers and the successful bid for Objective 2 funding from the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), which required clear environmental targets to be set. Key
9
planning frameworks governing redevelopment of the area attempt to centralise the principles
of sustainability (Porter and Hunt, 2005). The down-scaling of the ring road broke the
concrete collar that separated the city centre from Eastside, and the pedestrianisation of the
boundary between Eastside and the centre stimulated investment and developer interest in the
area.
Figure 2 is a simplified diagram of the relative power relationships between the organisations
involved in the regeneration of Eastside. Birmingham City Council (BCC) and Advantage
West Midlands (AWM) form the nucleus of the regeneration process each playing a different
role in the process. AWM is the regional development agency, whose primary interest lies in
the economic regeneration of Eastside and the wider region. BCC has a conflict of interests as
it is responsible for regulating the regeneration process through the planning system but also
is concerned with facilitating successful economic development and ensuring some societal
gains in the form of an improved public realm and new opportunities for learning and leisure.
Both AWM and BCC own land in the area. An important role of AWM in the redevelopment
process has been in the acquisition of land to the north of the area through compulsory
purchase which has been necessary to facilitate the area-based regeneration. Groundwork, a
charity concerned with sustainable environmental regeneration, is focusing on environmental
aspects of the project. Groundwork is collaborating with BCC through the secondment of two
sustainability advisors that act as conduits for information and as catalysts for environmental
(though also social and economic) gains. In this way sustainability is intended to be kept at
the heart of the decision-making process. The sustainable framework for Eastside is being
forged through an on-going process of interactions between these three actors supported by
the Eastside Sustainability Advisory Group (ESAG). ESAG sits on the periphery of the
process, the purpose of which is to advise the sustainability advisors and BCC on
sustainability issues. ESAG is composed of 17 representatives of NGOs, environmental
charities and interested public bodies (e.g. EA) who have a common interest in promoting
sustainability in Eastside and beyond. Numerous NGOs and community groups also play a
role in the regeneration process though in many cases a minimal one.
AWM and BCC have encouraged property developers to invest in Eastside by creating an
overall planning vision for the area that provides opportunities to enhance profit margins that
might accrue from property speculation in this area. The developers have been outside the
planning framework but have engaged with BCC, AWM and other relevant public bodies
10
(Environment Agency, British Waterways) in an attempt to unlock development
opportunities.
Figure 2: A simplified representation of the relative organisational power structure in
the Eastside urban regeneration scheme. The inner ring represents the policy making
community and the outer ring represents the other actors involved in the redevelopment
programme. The arrows indicate the magnitude of interaction between the different actors.
The diverse network of key players and stakeholders described above represents a typical
cross-section of actors involved in many urban regeneration schemes throughout the UK. The
complex relationships and interactions between the key players and their stakeholders are
subject to pressure from many of the barriers already identified. This study uses this
organisational framework to explore the importance of the different barriers and enablers that
act at different temporal and spatial scales in the redevelopment of a city quarter such as
Eastside.
BCC
AWM
Sustainability
Advisors
Eastside
Sustainability
Advisory
Group
NGOs
Community Groups
Developers
Private landowners
Investors
Public Bodies
(landowners)
11
Methodology
A range of qualitative methods were used to access the opinions of key stakeholders in the
Eastside project focusing on barriers to sustainability. Core data were provided by
questionnaires and complemented by data obtained from workshops, semi-structured
interviews (Brenner et al., 1985) and institutional ethnographic material (Cassel and Symon,
1994) collected through attendance at meetings, seminars and workshops between June 2003
and March 2005. The questionnaire, based on the work of Moore (1994), was used to rank
the importance of different barriers to sustainable regeneration encountered thus far in the
Eastside development. The exact wording, format and content of the questionnaire was
formulated reflexively at workshops attended by key individuals involved in the regeneration
process drawn from Birmingham City Council, Advantage West Midlands and Groundwork
(Birmingham). A follow-up workshop explored the complete range of barriers encountered by
a larger audience of urban regeneration professionals taken from the same organisations. This
workshop was used to inform and revise the content of the questionnaire before it was
distributed to respondents. A copy of the questionnaire was posted in January 2004 to more
than 100 individuals directly involved in the Eastside regeneration initiative. The
questionnaire was returned by 20 respondents from 14 organisations in the public, private and
NGO sectors (Table 1).
Respondents were asked to rank the significance of each barrier (with reference to the
Eastside development) with a value from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated not significant and 5
indicated highly significant. Cumulative scores are given in this paper (i.e. 20% indicates not
significant and 100% indicates highly significant). Respondents were also asked to identify
the three most important barriers and to suggest any other barriers not covered in the
questionnaire. A series of interviews were then arranged to follow up issues highlighted by
the respondents in more detail. All participants were given partial anonymity so that only their
organisation is identified.
12
Table 1: Organisations which responded to the questionnaire.
Sector Organisation Activities
Public Advantage West Midlands
Birmingham City Council
British Waterways
Regional Development Agency
Local Authority
Inland waterways management
Private ARUP
Drivers Jonas
MACE
Natural Building Technologies
Sustainability consultancy
Commercial property consultants
Construction and project management
Sustainable construction technologies
NGO Birmingham Association of
Neighbourhood Forums
Birmingham and Black Country
Wildlife Trust
Friends of the Earth
Groundwork (Birmingham)
Localise West Midlands
National Urban Forestry Unit
Optima
Promote devolved decision-making
Nature conservation
Environmental campaigners
Environmental regeneration
Promoting sustainable local economies
Promoting the benefits of trees
Registered social landlord
Attendance at workshops, seminars and meetings held between decision-making networks
and wider participatory groups was used to conduct informal interviews and gather
institutional ethnographical material. Through this process it was possible to gain access to a
wide range of organisations and people actively participating in Eastside’s decision-making
process. The data gathered in this way has been used to place the barriers identified by the
questionnaires into context.
Barriers to Achieving Sustainability in Eastside
The methodology used allows direct comparisons to be made between the importance of a
particular barrier within each barrier group, but also between barrier groups. Such an
approach is useful because it allows barriers to be ranked according to their perceived
importance (Table 2). There are problems with this type of analysis as some of the individual
barriers are more important than others. The most important barriers relate to an emphasis on
economic growth, short-term decision making by politicians, government fear of unpopularity
and an absence of regulations. The first three factors reflect short-termism that would be
difficult to overcome without fundamental alterations to the economic and political systems.
13
Table 2: The relative importance of the twenty most important barriers arranged by
barrier type.
Economic. Perceptual. Institutional. 1.Too much emphasis on economic growth. (83%)
2.Short-term decision-making. (82%)
3.Unwillingness to pay for sustainability. (81%)
3.Government fear of unpopularity. (81%)
3.Lack of sustainability regulations. (81%)
6.Insufficient funding for sustainability in projects. (79%)
6.Too many competing issues to deal with. (79%)
6.Difficult to change established behaviour. (79%)
9.Insufficient information on costs and savings. (78%)
9.Professional mindsets. (78%)
11.Short political terms favour short-term goals. (76%)
12.Lack of a ‘champion’. (73%)
13.Insufficient information. (72%)
14.Time taken for planning approval. (70%)
14.Inability to charge for natural assets. (70%)
14.Unequal council-community power balance. (70%)
14.Weak decision-maker diversity. (70%)
18.Slow inertia of built-environment. (69%)
18.Poor information sharing. (69%)
20.Funds allocated to other schemes. (67%)
These types of alterations would be impossible, yet gradual incremental alterations might
result in enhanced sustainability. It is worth noting that all three barrier groups have barriers
that could be addressed by policy interventions and all contain barriers that reflect
institutional, economic and political practices that would be difficult to overcome.
14
Perceptual Barriers
Table 3: Respondents rating of the importance of perceptual barriers to sustainable
development in Eastside
Perceptual Barriers Total
(%) Perceptual Barriers
Total
(%)
1. Politicians prefer short term policies,
more likely to win votes 82
10. Decision makers are afraid to take
risks due to mistakes made in the past 68
2. Government/council afraid to make
changes that might be unpopular 81
11. Differences in opinion between
people making it difficult to reach an
agreement
67
3. Dealing with several issues while
under pressure favours the easily
solvable issues rather than the most
important ones
79 12. Catering for the needs of the
minority rather than everyone 64
4. People are happy to support a
sustainability initiative until it requires
them to change their behaviour/practice
79
13. Uncertainty about how to
incorporate sustainability results in
following accepted practice or only
making small changes
62
5. Professional mindsets that follow
accepted wisdom 78
14. Sustainability as a concept is
difficult to understand 59
6. Lack of a 'champion' for
sustainability issues 73
15. Competing issues - when two or
more issues compete it is sometimes
difficult to decide which one is more
important
59
7. Not enough information to base
decisions on 72
16. Individual issues are difficult to
understand 56
8. Things take a long time to change
within the built environment which
may frustrate short-term goals
69
17. Why be concerned about
sustainability in Eastside and not the
rest of the city
49
9. The belief that changes for the good
made by an individual will have little
effect so why bother
68
The responses indicate that the most significant barriers to achieving sustainability are
structural systems of governance, in that decision-making is perceived to be limited by short-
termist political strategies (1). There is a belief amongst respondents that politicians tend to
15
opt for policies that will provide results within their term of office, which can be a barrier to
achieving longer-term goals. For example,
“Many developers have no intention of being the managers of sites…they [planners]
should make a preferred choice for those developers who have a longer term interest in
the site” (New Economic Foundation, 2/9/04).
This is linked with a perception of risk-averse behaviour in decision-making generally,
whereby professionals are limited to certain kinds of mindsets and accepted wisdom (5) and
unwilling or unable to take new, possibly riskier steps (10). It also reflects the complexity of
the development process with some developers being concerned with short-term development
profits while others are interested in development as part of a longer term investment strategy.
A regeneration scheme the size of Eastside will have within it a range of developers and
investors each with slightly different motivations for working in the area.
Respondents perceived that the nature of decision-making within urban regeneration schemes
such as Eastside hampered the achievement of sustainability. Pressures associated with
dealing with several competing and complex issues at once tends to favour the most easily
solvable problems first (3), and the level of uncertainty around sustainability (13) and its
perceived competing issues often work in the same way (15). This is partially linked to a
perceived lack of leadership on sustainable urban development (6), confirming the findings of
Birmingham City Council’s Peer Review European Sustainable Urban Development
(PRESUD) study (BCC, 2003). As a result, decision-makers are perceived to be generally
averse to the less familiar decision-making processes and outcomes required to achieve
sustainability.
The study showed that people are generally in favour of sustainable initiatives, seeing them as
intrinsically good. However, this support usually evaporates when it requires a change in their
behaviour (4). This applies to both individuals, who might, for example, prefer the luxury and
solitude of using their car rather than using public transport, and corporations who might use
organisational constraints as an argument against changing their procedures. Related to this is
the belief that there is little point in changing one’s behaviour if nobody else is prepared to
change theirs (9) and that the amount of difference that one person can make is not considered
to be significant so there is little point in changing one’s behaviour.
16
Institutional Barriers
Table 4: Respondents rating of the importance of institutional barriers to sustainable
development in Eastside
Institutional Barriers Total
(%) Institutional Barriers
Total
(%)
1. Regulations which do not insist on a
higher standard of sustainability 81
5. Lack of information (or knowledge
or skills) sharing between different
agencies
69
2. Short political term favours short-
term initiatives rather than long-term
goals
76 6. Lack of clear government policy 63
3. Unequal balance of power and
resources between local government
and community organisations
70
7. The departments (e.g.
local/national government)employed
to implement change aren't the most
suitable
59
4. Decision-makers tend to have the
same background therefore tend to
make the same judgements and
decisions
70
The absence of regulations which insist on a higher standard of sustainability was considered
by respondents to be a major institutional barrier to the sustainable development of Eastside
(1). This is apparent from recently completed buildings (e.g. Bullring, Millennium Point) and
those due to start (e.g. Masshouse). As a representative of Crest Nicholson, one of the main
developers involved with Eastside, stated, “We need to be forced to do sustainability”
(26/10/04). By contrast, BCC’s developer selection process for City Park Gate was based on
a 50% weighting for design and sustainability. Whilst it is too early to tell whether this will
have a major impact on the final building, at the early planning stage, there was some
evidence of progress in the planned implementation of sustainability principles (Porter and
Hunt, 2005). BCC as land owner has been able to force developers to incorporate sustainable
design and technology into the design of City Park Gates. This reflects the Sustainable
Buildings Task Group belief that
‘Higher standards of building design, output and process to improve sustainability
of performance will not come through repeated application of traditional
17
techniques and thinking. They call for an innovative approach from all concerned,
and the sensible commissioning and application of research work throughout the
industry’ (DTI, 2004: 13).
Respondents considered that there should be better regulations for all aspects of sustainability,
not just buildings. A sustainability checklist for developers has been produced by the Building
Research Establishment’s (BRE) Centre for Sustainable Construction (BRE, 2002) which is
designed to help developers and local authorities assess the environmental, social and
economic issues associated with a development with a view to achieving either good or best
practice. Such toolkits can be an excellent means of overcoming some of the barriers to
sustainable development and provide decision-makers with a practical framework for
achieving success. While not perfect, the checklist is described by the authors as ‘a significant
first step’ in helping decision-makers assess the three pillars of sustainability in proposed
developments. Though such toolkits exist, national government regulations do not insist on
their use although local government could adopt them as Supplementary Planning Guidance,
though this is not the case in Eastside.
The relationships between the different agencies operating in Eastside were seen as being
important for a number of reasons. A common perception held by respondents was that an
unequal balance of power and resources existed between the local government and
community organisations in Eastside with the balance of power and resources being in favour
of local government (3). As one consultant stated, “the City Council does its consultation
through consultants rather than directly [with the public] which results in the opinions, wants
and needs of the public being filtered out” (ARUP, 15/2/05). Returning to issues of
governance, these views seem to support Davies’ (2002) view of regeneration as a set of
partnerships with a strong local government, rather than Rhodes’ (1996) ideal of networks in
which the local government is merely another actor in the process.
The movement of information around the networks was perceived to be a barrier with some
agencies refusing to share or only limiting the knowledge they share with others (5).
Furthermore it was considered that, in some cases, these agencies were not the most suitable
for implementing the change that they were employed to do (7). Respondents also perceived
that the relative homogeneity of decision-makers in terms of their background and outlook
18
could prove a barrier to sustainability (4), as accepted wisdom and standard methods provided
easy fallback positions within institutional structures.
One example that was highlighted was the lack of imagination in achieving mixed-use
developments, particularly in terms of residential construction,
“There are lots of small flats being built in the city centre instead of other house types.
The indicator used by the government to prescribe housing needs is density which is
greater for the city centre than the suburbs. This is the wrong way round, there should
be larger houses in the city centre (and therefore a lower density) to ensure mixed
housing” (New Economics Foundation, 7/10/04).
The danger from a sustainability point of view is that rather than creating communities that
are viable in the long-term, such design principles create homogeneity of tenure, as “these
small flats are likely to be corporate-buy-to-lets and second homes” (ibid). The problem of
decision-makers reverting to established methods of working and design underpins a number
of structural issues, but also resonates with issues raised in the previous section concerning
the importance of pre-established perceptions in interpreting sustainability. This point is
returned to in the next section.
19
Economic Barriers
Table 5: Respondents rating of the importance of economic barriers to sustainable
development in Eastside
Economic Barrier Total
(%) Economic Barrier
Total
(%)
1. Economic growth is often seen as
being more important than social or
environmental issues
83
5. The planning system takes a long
time to approve an application which
inhibits the inclusion of innovative
features
70
2. People or companies are unwilling
to pay for the luxury of sustainability 81
6. The inability of any institution to
control and charge for the use (or
abuse) of a natural asset
70
3. Not enough money to fund
sustainability initiatives at all, or only
in the short-term
79
7. Existing regeneration funds are
already allocated to other initiatives
preventing new schemes happening
67
4. Many people don't know how
much it costs to build a sustainable
building and how much money it will
save them
78
8. The benefits of sustainable
development may be city-wide,
while the costs are paid by a few
people
59
The most important economic barrier to sustainable development was a belief that decision-
makers perceived economic development as being more important than social or
environmental issues (1). This was the most significant barrier found during this study and
supports the findings of Mittler (1999) and Vigar (2000). Closely related to this was the fact
that people (i.e. the taxpayer) or companies involved in development were not prepared to pay
for sustainable features viewing them as luxuries rather than necessities (2). For example,
“Speculative builders still don’t see the benefit of building in sustainability” (New Economics
Foundation, 15/2/05). The bottom line considerations that drive private companies lead to an
inevitable preference for designs that maximise profit margins on invested capital. As a
representative from Groundwork claimed, “developers would rather have separate entrances
for private housing and pay for social housing elsewhere” (Groundwork, 7/10/04).
The lack of funding to support sustainability initiatives at all, or only in the short-term (3),
was also seen as a major barrier to sustainable development. This is particularly true for the
proposed Eastside Library development, where lack of funding currently jeopardises a
20
sustainable exemplar project. Discussions with one senior Birmingham City Council officer
revealed that while it was relatively easy to get capital for a project, securing revenue to
sustain that project was more difficult (BCC, December 2003). While it is important to have
funding available to pump-prime sustainable development projects, it is also vitally important
that funding is available to perpetuate those projects and this funding should come from the
public sector (as it can be directed to the right areas) rather than leaving it for the private
sector to take the initiative.
Respondents considered that inadequate information was available in relation to the cost of
building a ‘sustainable building’, and how much money is likely to be saved during the
lifetime of that building through reduced energy and water usage (4), reiterating the findings
of the European Green Building Forum (EGBF, 2004). This represents a major disincentive
for developers who construct buildings to sell on to long-term institutional investors. As a
representative of the New Economics Foundation remarked: “Investors are unlikely to want to
buy a ‘novel’ building to generate a rental income if they are unsure of the running costs (i.e.
specialist maintenance needs) when contracting out management duties or, more rarely,
managing these themselves” (New Economics Foundation, September 2004). Given this “it is
important that we get a fiscal value for the different elements of sustainability that will stand
up in court” (representative of AWM, 25/8/04).
The shortage of planning officers experienced in sustainable design acts as a barrier to the
approval of buildings that have been designed with unfamiliar elements that support
sustainability. Planning approval is likely to take longer for buildings that incorporate novel
technologies (5) especially if building control officers are inexperienced in such technologies.
Planning delays increase the overall cost of a development project as the developer must
support the interest on borrowed capital as well as the opportunity costs. Delays encourage
developers to avoid risk by submitting conventional designs. In this way, the planning system
can be considered to be a significant barrier to sustainable housing (Wheeler, 2003), building
and development.
The inability of any institution to control and charge for the use (or abuse) of a natural asset
was considered to be important as a barrier to the sustainable development of Eastside (6). As
there is no institution that monitors (or charges for) the release of pollutants, such as CO2, to
the atmosphere, there is no incentive to reduce those emissions. As one respondent
commented: “if energy prices were higher people would insist on more energy-efficient
21
buildings which, in turn, would result in reduced CO2 emissions and would enable CO2
emission reduction targets to be more easily met,” (representative of ARUP, March 2004).
While energy prices remain low then there is no incentive to change the way buildings are
designed. Whilst it is possible to buy electricity produced from a renewable source through
the national grid it is more expensive than that produced from other methods. With the
relatively high costs of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels, this type of
behaviour is likely to continue unless higher standards are enforced in Eastside or until
current energy supplies can no longer meet demand (Rogers and Hunt, forthcoming).
Half of the respondents considered that the allocation of existing regeneration funds to other
initiatives (7) was either very or highly significant as a barrier to new sustainability initiatives.
Clearly, this barrier is linked to points (2) and (3) in Table 4. In the wider context, Eastside is
a small part of the East Birmingham and North Solihull regeneration zone, one of six
regeneration zones in the area. A significant proportion of regeneration funding for these
areas comes from the European Regional Development Fund Objective 2 programme, which
has sustainability outputs attached to it. These outputs include: the remediation of brownfield
sites; promotion of energy and water efficient designs; measures to promote local sourcing
and recruitment; and waste reduction and recycling schemes (Ecotec, no date). The outputs
are mostly environmental and therefore do not cover the provision of affordable housing and
the involvement of the community in the decision making process, issues which are
particularly relevant to a ‘sustainable’ Eastside.
Barriers Revisited
The typology of perceptual, institutional and economic barriers seems to fit the range of
challenges to sustainability identified by urban development practitioners. Like many other
studies that focus on the range of factors preventing sustainable development, this study
indicates that the fundamental requirement for economic growth continues to drive key urban
regeneration decisions, even when sustainability is generally upheld as a laudable principle
within that process. In Eastside, as in other areas, the push to restructure an old industrial
urban economy, thereby creating jobs and improving investment in the physical fabric of the
city, tends to constitute a barrier to other public policy agendas. Economic imperatives
exacerbate the institutional and perceptual barriers to sustainability, as actors fall back into
established ways of working and designing rather than trying to engage with the plethora of
22
possibilities that sustainable development offers. For example, where sustainability does play
a role in Eastside it is in a rather limited application of technologies to the built form to
enhance the environmental performance of individual buildings. On this understanding, truly
sustainable urban development, according to the definitions provided by Brundtland (WCED,
1987) and the UK Government (ODPM, 2005) outlined earlier in the paper, will never be
achieved.
A key theme that emerges across the barriers is the tendency for actors to adopt tried and
tested patterns of behaviour in the face of uncertainties surrounding how to interpret
sustainability. This risk-averse behaviour is highlighted by the barriers approach, which
suggests that there is an ultimate end-point of sustainability that it is possible to reach. This is
not the best approach with which to facilitate the integration of regeneration and sustainability
agendas, especially in Eastside, which aims to be a European model of best practice as it pre-
figures failure by assuming some ideal end-point for sustainability. This tendency to judge
projects a failure particularly afflicts environmental commentators because there is an inbuilt
disciplinary emphasis upon environmental considerations (Couch and Denneman, 2000;
Hanson and Lake, 2000), which are so often the least influential aspect of sustainability tools
in practice.
Given this analytic bias in the barriers typology, it is necessary to disengage from the
language of ‘barriers’ that permeates research in this area, and re-frame them as opportunities.
In this context it is worth noting that sustainability is an active on-going process. The
completion of the Eastside regeneration project is only the end of the beginning of this area’s
sustainability agenda. This means that the buildings and open spaces need to be actively
managed to ensure that they maximise the benefits that will come from developments in
sustainable technologies as well as management practices. By focusing upon the potential
opportunities that the challenges of sustainable development offer, the debate shifts from
descriptive barriers (and the language of failure) to more prescriptive enablers and the
‘actually existing sustainabilities’ that link it to ‘actual practices rather than… guiding
principles’ (Krueger and Agyeman, in press, p.1). Indeed, this approach is more in keeping
with the tenets of sustainable development itself, which does not aim to offer a ‘one size fits
all’ model, but rather, emphasises the need to interpret its principles in relation to local needs
and contexts. This approach is developed in Donovan et al. (forthcoming) by exploring how
23
opportunites to enhance sustainability can be applied in practice in an urban regeneration
scheme such as Eastside (Donovan et al., forthcoming).
Conclusions
This paper used a range of questionnaire and interview data to explore the typology of
barriers through a real-time urban regeneration programme in the UK. The typology of
perceptual, institutional and economic barriers reflected the range of challenges to
sustainability identified by urban development practitioners. Like many other studies that
focus on the range of factors preventing sustainable development, this study indicates that the
fundamental requirement for economic growth continues to drive key urban regeneration
decisions, even when sustainability is generally upheld as a laudable principle within that
process. The economic imperative exacerbates the institutional and perceptual barriers to
sustainability, as actors fall back into established ways of working and designing rather than
trying to engage with the plethora of possibilities that sustainable development offers. On this
understanding, sustainable urban development, according to the definitions provided by
Brundtland and the UK Government outlined earlier in the paper, will never be achieved.
However, we argue that the typology of barriers may not be the most suitable tool with which
to approach sustainable urban regeneration, especially in Eastside, which aims to be a
European model of best practice, because they pre-figure failure by assuming that some
‘ideal’ end-point for sustainability exists. By focusing upon the potential opportunities that
the challenges of sustainable development offer, we argue that it is necessary to shift the
debate from descriptive barriers (and the language of failure) to more prescriptive enablers
capable of capturing innovative best practice. The next paper (Donovan et al., forthcoming)
develops this approach.
24
References
Beauregard, R. (2003). Democracy, storytelling and the sustainable city. In. B. Eckstein and J.A. Throgmorton. (Eds). Story and Sustainability: Planning, Practice and Possibility for American Cities. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press: 65-77
Birmingham City Council. (2003). PRESUD - Peer Review for European Sustainable Urban Redevelopment Review – final report 40pp.
Brenner, M., Brown, J. and Canter, D. (1985). The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. London, Academic Press.
Brugmann, J. (1997). Is There a Method in Our Measurement? The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning. Local Environment. 2(1):59-72
Bryson, J.R. (1997) ‘Obsolescence and the process of creative reconstruction’, Urban Studies, 34, 9: 1439-1458.
Bryson, J.R. (2003) ‘Reshaping and Reinventing the City of Birmingham, United Kingdom: Planning for Enterprise and the Information Society’ in MacLaran, A. (ed.) Making Space: Property Development and Urban Planning, Edward Arnold: 194-212.
Building Research Establishment (BRE). (2002). A Sustainability Checklist for Developments: A common framework for developers and local authorities. Building Research Establishment, Centre for Sustainable Construction.
Cassel, C. and Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative methods in organisational research. Sage, London.
Cooper, I. and Palmer, J. (1999). Review of EPSRC's Sustainable Cities Programme. Planning Practice and Research. 14 125-132
Couch, C. and Denneman, A. (2000). Urban regeneration and sustainable development in Britain. Cities. 17 137-147
Counsell, D. and Haughton, G. (2003). Regional planning tensions: planning for economic growth and sustainable development in two contrasting English regions. Environment and Planning C - Government and Policy. 21(2): 225-39
Davies, J. (2002). The governance of urban regeneration: A critique of the 'governing without government' thesis. Public Administration. 80 301-322
Davies, J. (2004). Conjuncture or disjuncture? An institutional analysis of local regeneration partnerships in the UK. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 28 570-585
de Magalhaes, C. Healey, P. and Madanipour, A. (2002). Assessing institutional capacity for city centre regeneration: Newcastle's Grainger Town. In. G. Cars, P. Healey, A. Madanipour, C. de Magalhaes. (Eds). Urban governance, insitutional capacity and social milieux. (Ashgate, Aldershot) pp 45-64
DETR. (1998). Modernising Planning. HMSO, London.
DETR. (1999a). Urban Task Force prospectus: our towns and cities: the future- delivering an urban renaissance. HMSO, London.
DETR. (1999b). A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK. HMSO, London.
DETR. (2000). Our towns and cities: the future. HMSO, London.
25
Department of trade and Industry (2004) Better buildings - better lives Sustainable Buildings Task Group Report, DTI: London DTLR. (2001). Planning: delivering fundamental change. HMSO, London.
Donovan, R.G., Evans, J.E., Bryson, J.R., Porter, L and Hunt. D (forthcoming). Enablers to Achieving Sustainability: Reflections from Eastside, Birmingham.
Ecotec. (no date). Eastside: Bid to ERDF. Ecotec and Birmingham City Council.
Elliott, J. (1994). An Introduction to Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.
European Green Building Forum (EGBF). http://research.scpm.salford.ac.uk/bqtoolkit/index2.htm (Accessed 14/6/04)
Gibbs, D., Longhurst, J. and Braithwaite, C. (1996). Moving Towards Sustainable Development? Integrating Economic Development and the Environment in Local Authorities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 39, pp. 317-332.
Gibbs, D. Jonas, A. and While, A. (2002). Changing governance structures and the environment: economy - environment relations at the local and regional scales. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 4 123-138
Hanson, S. and Lake, R. (2000). Needed: Geographic research on urban sustainability. Urban Geography. 21(1), pp. 1-4.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in a Fragmented Society. Macmillan, London.
Hudson, R. (2001). Producing Places. London, The Guildford Press.
Jones, T. (1996). Local Authorities and Sustainable Development: turning policies into practical action through performance review – a case study of the London Borough of Hackney. Local Environment. 1(1):87-105
Jones, P. and Evans, J. (submitted). Regimes, partnerships or something else? 'Distance', 'intimacy' and the governance of UK urban regeneration Urban Studies
Krueger, R. and Agyeman, J. (in press). Sustainability schizophrenia or "actually existing sustainabilities?" toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US. Geoforum.
Mackay, H. (1999). Turning Point: Australians Choosing Their Future. Sydney, Pan Macmillan.
Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 18: 493-520.
Mittler, D. (1999). Environmental Space and Barriers to Local Sustainability: evidence from Edinburgh, Scotland. Local Environment. 4(3):353-365
Moffatt, I. (1995). Sustainable Development: Principles, Analysis and Policies. Lancashire, Parthenon Publishing Group.
Moore, J.L. (1994). What’s Stopping Sustainability? Examining the barriers to implementing Clouds of Change. MA Thesis. University of British Columbia.
Oatley, N. (Ed)., (1998). Cities, economic competition and urban policy. London, Paul Chapman.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004). Consultation Paper on Planning Policy Statement 1: Creating Sustainable Communities. ODPM, London.
26
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, ODPM: London
Owens, S. and R. Cowell (2002). Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process. London, Routledge.
Pezzoli, K. (1997). Sustainable development: a transdisciplinary overview of the literature, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 40(5): 549-574.
Pinfield, G. (1996). Beyond Sustainability Indicators. Local Environment.
1(2):151-163
Porter, L. and Hunt, D. (2005) Birmingham’s Eastside Story: Making Steps Towards Sustainability? Local Environment (in press).
Reid, D. (1995). Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. London, Earthscan.
Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: governing without governance. Political Studies. XLIV: 652-667
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics. 48: 369-384
Rogers, C. D. F. and Hunt, D. V. L. (forthcoming). Barriers facing the provision of sustainable infrastructure and utilities within one of the largest redevelopment schemes undertaken in the U.K.
Rydin, Y. (1995). Sustainable development and the role of land use planning. Area. 27(4): 369-377.
Rydin, Y. (2002). After the Summit? Thoughts on the implementation of sustainable development. Environment and Urbanization. 14(2): 207-210.
Rydin Y, Holman, N., Hands, V. and Sommer, F. (2003). Incorporating sustainable development concerns into an urban regeneration project: how politics can defeat procedures. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management. 46: 545-561
Sandercock, L. (2003). Dreaming the Sustainable City: Organizing hope, negotiating fear, mediating memory. In. Eckstein, B. and J. Throgmorton (Eds). Story and Sustainability: Planning, Practice, and Possibility for American Cities, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Smerdon, T., Pinney, C. and Kilford, S. (1996). Sustainable Construction: The United Kingdom viewpoint. Report 13 BSRIA, www.sustainble-design.com/sustain/uk.pdf 47pp
Throgmorton, J. (2003). Imagining Sustainable Places. In. Eckstein, B. and J. Throgmorton (Eds) Story and Sustainability: Planning, Practice and Possibility for American Cities. Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Vigar, G. (2000). Local ‘Barriers’ to Environmentally Sustainable Transport Planning. Local Environment. 5(1):19-32
Wheeler, J. (2003). One million sustainable homes. Industry and Environment. WWF UNEP. pp.26-27
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Top Related