Handbook 3

Improving the quality of life in Large Urban Distressed Areas
Compendium: Handbook 3
Sustainable urban regeneration and its

assessment
May 2005, version 1.0
LUDA is a research project of Key Action 4 City of Tomorrow & Cultural Heritage from the
programme Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development within the Fifth
Framework Programme of the European Union.
http://www.luda-project.net
LUDA Compendium
Sustainable urban regeneration and its assessment
Introduction
This handbook discusses sustainable urban regeneration and its assessment. The main aim
of the handbook is to provide a broad introduction to assessment in the sustainable
regeneration of large urban distressed areas (LUDAs). The purpose of this handbook is also
to ensure that all stakeholders have a common understanding of the process and its
requirements.
The handbook has two parts. Both parts cover the same material, although they have
differing lengths. Part 1 of the handbook provides a short introduction to the subject area,
while part 2 is longer and goes into more detail. The longer version of the text is best suited
to readers who have some knowledge of regeneration and rehabilitation in urban areas.
Using this handbook

You can use this handbook like a normal book. You can print it out or you can read it on
screen. If you read it on screen then you can search the text using the find tool.
The handbook includes internal and external links. Internal links look like this. If you click on
them, you will move to another part of the document. External links usually to websites
look like this: www.luda-project.net. If you click on the link it will take you to a web page.
You may find it helpful to consult the compendium glossary. This explains the meanings of
specific terms and words, e.g. sustainable development and quality of life. You will find the
glossary as a separate document on the compendium web page (www.luda-
project.net/comphpage1).
Acknowledgements
This handbook is based on material produced by the LUDA project.
The compendium was compiled by the School of the Built Environment, Napier University,
Edinburgh.
Back to Table of Contents 2

LUDA Compendium
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2
Using this handbook ............................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 3
Part 2....................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 4
2. Sustainable urban regeneration....................................................................................... 4
2.1 What is sustainable urban re/development (SUD)? ................................................. 4
2.2 What is urban regeneration? ...................................................................................... 6
2.3 The persistence of urban distress ............................................................................. 7
2.4 The new agenda for urban regeneration ................................................................... 7
2.5 What is sustainable urban regeneration? ................................................................. 8
3. Sustainable urban regeneration assessment ................................................................. 9
3.1 Assessment methods and techniques .................................................................... 10
4. Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 11
5. Why carry out assessment? ........................................................................................... 12
5.1 The importance of sustainable assessment ........................................................... 12
5.2 Collaborative, Strategic, Goal Orientated Planning (CoSGOP) the LUDA
improvement process ..................................................................................................... 14
5.3 Assessment Methodology for CoSGOP LUDA Improvement Process................. 16
6. What methods and techniques are appropriate for evaluating the sustainability of
urban regeneration?............................................................................................................ 17
6.1 Legal requirements in Europe .................................................................................. 17
6.2 Policies, plans programmes and projects............................................................... 19
6.3 Economic, social and environmental problems ..................................................... 20
6.4 Participation with stakeholders................................................................................ 23
6.5 Futures workshops in urban regeneration.............................................................. 27
7. Which methods and techniques are appropriate for stages in the process?............ 30
7.1 Diagnosing LUDAs .................................................................................................... 31
7.2 Visioning the sustainable regeneration of LUDAs ................................................. 34
7.3 Assessing plans, programmes and projects (programming)................................ 38
7.4 Implementing LUDA improvement activities .......................................................... 40
7.5 Monitoring improvement of quality of life in LUDAs .............................................. 41
8. How will the method be funded?.................................................................................... 43
8.1 Public: European, national, regional and local funding sources .......................... 43
8.2 The Public Private Partnership Route (PPP) ........................................................... 45
References ........................................................................................................................... 49

LUDA Compendium
Part 2
1. Introduction
This handbook provides an introduction to sustainable urban regeneration and its

assessment. It seeks to encompass professional, political and citizens perspectives on
decision-making in urban regeneration and the way this can be informed by assessment. It is
important that all stakeholders can be confident that the outcomes of regeneration will meet
their needs, improve the quality of life for citizens, enhance the prosperity of the LUDA, and
improve the quality of the environment. This handbook addresses the following questions:
What is sustainable urban regeneration, how can and should it be assessed?
Why do we need to use assessment in urban regeneration; what are the legal
obligations, voluntary opportunities and benefits?
How and when should assessment be undertaken in the regeneration process and
what tools and techniques can and should be used?
Who can and should be involved, who should commission and fund assessments and
who should carry them out?
What are the likely outcomes and how should this be used and disseminated?
The section 2 of this handbook provides a broad introduction to sustainable development and
urban regeneration. Section 4 introduces the commonly used terms, the main types of
assessment and the definitions used in assessment. Section 5 explores why assessment(s)
is necessary and the main benefits of undertaking assessment, including the regeneration
and assessment processes and the wide range of actors involved. Section 6 introduces the
main assessment methods and techniques that can be used to evaluate the sustainability of
urban regeneration. Section 7 identifies commonly used methods and techniques appropriate
for the main stages in the process. Finally section 8 explores sources of funding for
assessment.
The main aim of this handbook is to provide a broad introduction to assessment in the
sustainable urban regeneration of LUDAs. The purpose of the handbook is also to ensure
that all stakeholders have a common understanding of the process and its requirements. For
more detailed guidance on the range of assessment methods available and on their detailed
application when undertaking assessment(s) please consult handbook 5.
2. Sustainable urban regeneration

2.1 What is sustainable urban re/development (SUD)?
The world-wide decay in environmental quality and the gradual depletion of natural resources
has been a dominant theme for research and public policy in the latter part of the twentieth
century and is likely to remain so for the first quarter of the twenty first. Although the concept
of sustainable development can be traced back to the 1980s, the real watershed in

LUDA Compendium
understanding came with the Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED). It defined sustainable development as:
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs. (WCED, 1987, p. 42)
This remains the benchmark definition of sustainable development. Numerous other

definitions exist, but Brundtland represented an emerging international consensus around the
conflict between demand for human development and protection of environmental systems.
The concept was further expanded at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (UNCED, 1992) through
Agenda 21, the Policy plan for environment and sustainable development in the 21st
Century. In all 27 principles were agreed in the final declaration. Ten of these are relevant to
questions of SUD, which have been simplified and rationalized into four core principles:
ecological integrity, equity, participation and futurity in a four-sided model, known as
PICABUE, see Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: The PICABE model of sustainable development principles
Futurity Environment
Concern for Concern for
future the integrity
generations of eco-
systems
Concern that Concern for

individuals are todays poor and
able to disadvantaged
participate in
decisions
affecting them
Participation Equity
Source: (ERC 1996 and BEQUEST 1998)
PICABUE draws attention to concerns about the quality of the environment, equity of
resource consumption, as well as the participation of the public in decisions that affect their
lives, particularly in understanding the future implications of decisions taken today, on the
environmental systems and on current and future generations. And the impacts of urban
regeneration extend well beyond the site or the administrative boundaries of the area
concerned. As ecological footprinting makes clear, these impacts stretch far beyond the
member states concerned, affecting what Wackernagel and Rees (1996) called distant
elsewheres, see Figure 2.

LUDA Compendium
Figure 2: Ecological footprinting
Source: Wackernagel and Rees (1996)
The European Union and the majority of member states have placed sustainable
development at the heart of policy making (Busquin 2000) and it forms one of the main
building blocks of the urban thematic strategy and the current URBAN programme
[discussed in handbook 2]. Sustainable urban development (SUD) relates to questions about
urban futures, cities of tomorrow and the protection of their cultural heritage and how to build
the capacity needed to conserve resources, protect the environment and qualify whether
such action is equitable. In turn this means the assessments undertaken to evaluate the
sustainability of urban development must support and foster public participation in decisions
taken about the future of urban development because such inclusiveness is integral to SUD.
2.2 What is urban regeneration?

Urban regeneration is about addressing the symptoms of urban distress through improving
declining and disadvantaged areas in towns and cities. It is not just about revitalising derelict
places but is also concerned with broader issues such as improved economic
competitiveness and quality of life, especially for those who live in deprived neighbourhoods.
Ideally urban regeneration involves formulating policy goals, implementing these through
programmes of activity, and then monitoring performance over time.

LUDA Compendium
The goals of urban regeneration can be framed broadly to include:
enhancing the physical condition of localities (this involves environmental
improvement, development and redevelopment of land and property);
stimulating the local economy with activities such as training and enterprise support
to business in order to increase the skills of the unemployed;
tackling social and community issues such as community safety, adult literacy and
health promotion;
securing the longer term future of the locality by strengthening the community's
potential for self-government (community capacity building with an emphasis on
community-based organisations); and,
developing governance structures that involve local stakeholders in decision-making,
including resource allocation (Vilaplana, 1998).
2.3 The persistence of urban distress

Handbooks 1 and 2 show that urban regeneration is not a new issue and that many previous
approaches to regeneration have found it extremely difficult to generate long-lasting
solutions. Governmental assumption that intervention in the land and property market offers
the best way to tackle urban distress and bring about rehabilitation in LUDA like areas, has
been subject to intense scrutiny and found wanting. At best this approach has tended to
offer only temporary answers. At worst, in a small number of cases where piecemeal
approaches have been adopted this has resulted in break-up of communities and further
decline.
This top-down approach to tackling urban distress has now been replaced by the concept of
partnership. As a result regeneration has become dominated by partnerships, particularly
between the public and private sectors, where national and local government enter into
partnerships with regional development agencies and business to lever resources from the
private sector and channel money, capital and professional expertise into regeneration.
Unfortunately, while the property market interventionist approach has been with us for more
than 20 years, and partnerships have become common in many of the original EU member
states over the past 10, large areas of urban distress still remain and are widespread. This
suggests that neither the market or partnership approaches to tackling urban distress and
rehabilitating large areas is sufficient. This is because it is increasingly recognised that such
approaches only offer an ad-hoc, short-term response to distress experienced in urban areas
and not a long-term solution to deep-seated social or environmental problems. This has
prompted a review of urban policy and planning which recognises a new agenda for tackling
urban distress at sufficiently large and appropriate scale of action that enables proper
evaluation of both positive and negative impacts.
2.4 The new agenda for urban regeneration

In LUDAs the idea of tackling urban distress in terms of social exclusion and economic
competitiveness alone can be criticised because it neglects the sustainable development
agenda. Attention is drawn to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit - Agenda 21 as well as the Aalborg

LUDA Compendium
Charter of European cities and towns towards sustainability (1994, 1996 and 2000). The new
agenda promotes enhanced partnership strategies with deeper integration and cross-cutting
measures that address environmental degradation. The new agenda also promotes
strategies which are sufficiently inclusive to allow cities to meet the sustainability challenge of
the 2001 EU White Paper on European Governance. This new approach is perhaps best
characterised by the 2002-2006 URBAN II Community Initiative of which the key elements
are:
an integrated approach to tackling high concentrations of social, economic and
environmental distress in urban areas;
clear targeting of a well-defined area/neighbourhood; and,
explicit commitment to citizen involvement and the solving of urban problems at grass
root level.
The EC views the URBAN Community Initiative as a success story. It has helped to raise
awareness about the importance of tackling urban distress as a form of poverty and social
exclusion requiring economic and environmental actions by cities and governed by those
members of the community most closely affected by such area-base rehabilitation.
New institutional forms are emerging that attempt to develop and deliver more holistic and
integrated bottom-up community-led regeneration programmes that include all stakeholders.
Such approaches increase the chances of developing long-lasting sustainable solutions to
the problems of deprived areas. Thus urban regeneration is now about governing
consortiums of stakeholders from the community working together with business and public
agencies to make integrated and sustainable social, economic and physical improvements to
a defined LUDA.
2.5 What is sustainable urban regeneration?

If no interventions are made to alleviate distressed areas in cities, then one form of
unsustainability can lead or aggravate another, so accelerating a vicious cycle of decline.

LUDA Compendium
Figure 3: Vicious cycle of decline
Environmentally Economically
unsustainable unsustainable
Depleted resources or Economic or technical

destroyed resource base, change leading to
polluted environment uncompetitive declining
economy
Physically Socially
unsustainable unsustainable
Overloaded, degenerating or
inefficient infrastructure, High crime rates, fear of
ageing and poorly crime, anomie, alienation
maintained building stock, and outward migration
lack of green space, poor
transportation systems
(adapted from Elkin & Cooper, 1993)
Sustainable urban regeneration seeks to tackle all these forms of unsustainability through an
integrated programme of projects intended reverse this cycle, preferably turning it instead
into a virtuous circle of improvement. Devising integrated programmes requires thinking
about cities and neighbourhoods in an organic and holistic way, recognising the
interrelationship and linkages between different problems and opportunities. Success needs
to be measured not just in terms of environmental improvements, but in the opportunities
created for empowering people, developing common visions and for nurturing commercial
and social enterprises. It requires greater integration across various urban decision-making
and professional disciplines. In this context, urban policy-makers, planners, property
developers, designers (architects and engineers) and constructors need to see themselves
as change-managers. They need to seek innovative solutions to adapt and regenerate cities
whilst supporting more sustainable lifestyles.
3. Sustainable urban regeneration assessment
Sustainable urban regeneration assessment (SURA) is made up of a family of methods that

can help policy-makers and decision-takers decide what they should do to make their cities
more sustainable. Impact assessment alone is not sufficient (Devuyst, 2001). Tools and
indicators for measuring progress towards sustainability goals are also required, along with
procedures for linking these with policy-making and decision-making processes. LUDA offers

LUDA Compendium
a detailed framework within which to locate assessment of the sustainability of urban
regeneration.
One of the important aims of SURA is to improve decision-making about urban development,
opening up the decision-making processes and making them transparent and open to
external scrutiny through public participation. Implementing SURA should encourage
decision-makers to give appropriate attention to sustainability issues in the realization of their
initiatives. Ideally, SURA should be fully integrated into policy-making and decision-making
processes and should lead to the production of information that can be used in planning as
well as raising public awareness and understanding.
3.1 Assessment methods and techniques

Assessment methods and techniques can be categorised according to three main groups:
Multi-criteria methods (MCA): these can be used to identify a single most preferred
option, to rank options, or to short-list a limited number of options for subsequent
detailed appraisal. In particular, MCA methods are useful for comparing options and
proposals when evaluating alternatives of the plan or programme. MCA methods
usually rely on the scoring and weighting of options according to a defined set of
objectives and/or performance criterion. Each MCA method is distinct and has a
different role to play in reaching key decisions. Examples of MCA methods include:
analytic hierarchy process (AHP), flag model, concordance analysis and regime
analysis.
Futures methods and techniques: these are creative ways of examining complex
and uncertain issues during the initial stages of the planning process. They
encourage people to think outside the box and to adopt the longer-term perspective
so that any future changes can be anticipated, prepared for, and ultimately managed
better. Consequently, they encourage policy-makers to make more intelligent
decisions today concerning the future by focusing on the most important questions
that must be resolved in order to design better policy. Perhaps the most valuable
aspect of futures methods and techniques, however, lie in their ability to encourage a
range of stakeholders to participate in decision-making towards a common, shared
goal or vision. Examples of futures methods include: strategic conversations, horizon
scanning, brainstorming, scenario development, visioning and wind tunnel testing.
Impact assessment methods (IA): these assess the potential direct, indirect and
cumulative effects of the alternatives of the plan, programme and/or project. Impact
assessment methods are useful for predicting the magnitude, geographical scope,
time-scale, and likelihood of each impact, making judgements about whether the
impacts are significant and putting forward measures for mitigating impacts. IA
methods are usually targeted towards one particular issue, for example,
environmental impact assessment, however in some cases impact assessment
methods can cut across all the major issues, e.g. community impact assessment.
Other examples of impact assessment methods include: cost benefit analysis,
economic impact assessment and social impact assessment

LUDA Compendium
3.1.1 Additional techniques

There are some techniques that cannot be categorised according to these three main
groups. These include: data collection tools, e.g. survey questionnaires; analytical tools, e.g.
geographic information systems (GIS); and generic techniques, e.g. SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis and expert judgement.
4. Definitions
4.1.1 Methods, Techniques, Tools
In this handbook a consistent distinction is made between the terms methods, techniques
and tools. These are nested in a hierarchy as illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Nested hierarchy of terms
Method
Technique
Tool
Methodology
Method
This is used to mean a procedure followed in order to accomplish a task. It is a mode of
procedure - a (defined or systematic) way of doing something, especially (when specifying a
word or words) - in accordance with a particular theory or as associated with a particular
person.
Technique
This is a specific approach to performing a task. It is a methodical means of handling and
communicating complex details.
Tool
This is a (concrete or abstract) product used in applying a method: for instance, an
instrument of logic for assisting analysis.
Methodology
This is a body of procedures, principles, methods and techniques used - for example, to
conduct research - in a coherent, consistent, accountable and repeatable manner for a
specific programme, project or activity.

LUDA Compendium
4.1.2 Policies, Plans, Programmes and Projects
Policy
This is an objective (or set of objectives) together with a general specification of how it is to
be achieved.
Plan
A course of action for future re/development or regeneration to achieve the objectives.
Programme
A group of interventions often linked together over time and encompassing more than one
project (in order to deliver a plan or part of a plan?).
Project
A single intervention or discrete, one off, form of activity.
The inter-relationship between these four terms is explored more fully in section 5.1.2.
5. Why carry out assessment?
5.1 The importance of sustainable assessment

5.1.1 Environmental considerations
Urban policy has tended to rank the environment a poor third behind social and economic
issues, with little evidence of it being considered in attempts to tackle urban distress.
Environmental issues have been largely irrelevant to plans setting out the prospects of an
area and in some cases may be seen as a barrier to progress (e.g. the green belts in some
UK towns). However, the emergence of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) offers
some hope to realign the relations in question and put the social, economic and
environmental dimensions on an equal footing. The LUDA improvement process must place
the environment as an integral, strategic and cross-cutting aspect. Therefore assessment of
it requires ecological integrity to be put where it rightfully belongs - alongside the economic
and social - a constant in those measures taken to tackle urban distress. It is important to
know if the weight of the socially inclusive and economically competitive measures adopted
form a burden on the environment and whether this is within the carrying capacity of the
ecosystems (locally or globally).
Environmental impacts therefore need to be understood by all stakeholders in the

community. They also need to be considered at each stage of the regeneration process and
every level in order to avoid a situation where the effects remain undiscovered until the
programme is complete and the implementation stage is confronted.
5.1.2 The role of assessment in integrated sustainable community based regeneration

planning
The community-based approach to urban regeneration outlined in section 2 aims to tackle
urban decline and support large-scale sustainable regeneration, through a decision making

LUDA Compendium
process that is inclusive, competitive and environmentally sustainable. It requires the
following:
putting people at the centre of the urban distress, capturing their perceptions of the
problems and the possible solutions that exist;
providing resources for people to carry out such exercises and supporting them in
becoming confident, ready and able to articulate their communitys views
raising awareness of the communitys views in the neighbourhoods making up the
LUDA in question;
targeting the urban distress identified by the community, tackling the most
disadvantage neighbourhoods first and ameliorating the disadvantages to potential
losers in the regeneration process;
working with business and government agencies to transform the delivery of public
services in the area, agreeing levels of service with local inhabitants and delivering
new services through partnership agreements between stakeholders;
securing long-term commitment from business and decision makers at all levels of
government to tackle the distress of large urban areas and develop the integrated
strategy that is sufficiently cross-cutting and which is a necessary prerequisite to
more sustainable regeneration of LUDAs.
This is based upon the following assumptions:

communities provide the most appropriate basis to overcome the fragmented nature
and short-termism of current thinking and tackle the long-term challenge posed by
LUDAs;
recognition that environmental, social and economic impacts of change will be
complex and widespread and that there will be gainers and losers. Using this fact as
the starting point in establishing the physical area of the LUDA and managing the
communitys search for an integrated, strategic and cross-cutting approach capable
of meeting the long-term challenge LUDAs pose and leading to a more sustainable
regeneration outcome for all gainers and potential losers;
that it is important for the community to learn from the legacy of past interventions
and build a consensus-based, integrated and cross-cutting strategic approach to the
long-term challenge large-scale regeneration poses.
In order to achieve these bottom-up community planning objectives assessments are

needed to evaluate impacts, to help recognise good practice and to inform stakeholders of
the potential impacts. Five main assessment steps can be identified:
diagnosis;
visioning;
programming;
implementing; and,
monitoring.

LUDA Compendium
These steps can be summarised as follows:
Diagnosis: Setting the context of LUDA and establishing the scope. Benchmarking
the current situation in environmental, socio-economic and institutional terms as the
base on which proposals can be developed;
Visioning: Developing a strategic concept for improving the quality of life in LUDA;
generating alternatives and scenarios. Identification of a range of possible social and
economic policy and physical development options through collaborative work with,
and the participation of, all stakeholders;
Programming: Prepare plan/improvement programme based on the preferred future
vision; predicting the impacts and evaluating the effects of the plan/programme.
Analysis of and selection of the optimum outcome for the situation under
consideration in terms increasing the sustainability of the community;
Implementing: Finalise the plan/programme; designate and implement key projects.
Minimising negative effects during the implementation phase and amending
proposals as becomes necessary during implementation;
Monitoring: Monitoring changes in the quality of life of LUDA. Ongoing reviews to
monitor progress and to update the vision.
Although these assessment steps are easily described, the reality is that they can be very
difficult to deliver because of the complexity of the analysis, the wide range of stakeholders
involved and the potential for disagreement about the targets and indicators for improvement.
They embrace a very wide range of issues and actors so that in all cases there is a clear
need for assessment at each stage to enable objective, fully evidence-based sustainability
evaluations and provide sound information on the future implications of various options, both
for decision-makers and the wide range of other stakeholders. An established methodology
for this is known as collaborative, strategic, goal orientated planning (CoSGOP) which is
described in more detail in handbook 2. The commentary below provides further reflection on
CoSGOP in the context of setting the targets and indicators against which assessments have
to be made.
5.2 Collaborative, Strategic, Goal Orientated Planning (CoSGOP) the LUDA

improvement process
CoSGOP has been developed as a logical framework to help develop the community based
approach to tackling urban distress and to support large-scale rehabilitation. It offers a
decision-making process that is inclusive, competitive and potentially environmentally
sustainable. As such it promotes collaboration between stakeholders and their integration
into a strategy which is cross-cutting and allows partners to develop consensus on the scope
and distribution of urban distress and programme of area-based rehabilitation. In addition to
this, it draws particular attention to the goals of the programme and participation required
between stakeholders to agree them. As a tool for agreeing the scope and distribution of
urban distress and goals of the area-based rehabilitation programme, CoSGOP provides a
way of logically framing the improvement process and a means of communicating the aims
and objectives between stakeholders.

LUDA Compendium
CoSGOP cuts across the community concern over urban distress and levels of decision
making required by government to promote a LUDA programme and ensures its
implementation in ways that achieve the desired improvements in the quality of life. As such
it provides a tool for mapping out a common pathway for stakeholders to follow through the
rehabilitation process. Figure 5 shows how this can be done, by setting the CoSGOP
approach within two axes representing the community and government decision-making
trajectories, the components of CoSGOP making up the respective steps and stages of the
sustainable urban rehabilitation process.
[Insert Figure 5]
Agreement on the goals of the rehabilitation programme is critical as these provide the
indicators that the programme targets and which it sets for the implementation of the
rehabilitation project. The following attempts to capture the goals of CoSCOP as a
community-based approach to tackling urban distress and area-based rehabilitation as a
sustainable solution. The goals are drawn form a good practice survey of urban policy and
planning on the following programmes:
Grite Steden Beleid (major cities project), Netherlands
Kvaters-loft (neighbourhood lift), Denmark
Soziale Stadt (socially integrative city), Germany
Programmi Intrgrati diIntervento (integrative planning), Italy
Area-based Partnerships, Ireland
These goals represent the main outcomes expected form the community-based approach to
tackling urban distress and area-based rehabilitation. They are pre-dominantly substantive,
as opposed to procedural aims and objectives and offer the opportunity for community to not
only assess the outcomes, but also identify if they meet the targets set. They are as follows:
Understand the urban distress experienced by the community. This requires urban
distress to be seen as multi-faceted and the outcome of many factors having an
adverse effect on the quality of life. Here the aim is to represent urban distress as a
form of poverty and multiple-depravation, whose complexity needs to be unpacked.
The object of this is to objectively represent the experience of urban distress and
resulting poverty.
Reversing the trend. Here the aim is to turn around the experience of urban distress.
This requires a trend analysis and set of indicators able to measure urban distress.
This is done by grouping the experiences and clustering them together thematically
under actions it is possible to take in tackling urban distress. The objective of such
actions is to tackle urban distress in an integrated way and with a strategy which is
capable of cutting across the multiple deprivation experienced. Table 1 sets out the
indicators and clustering of thematic groups.

LUDA Compendium
Rehabilitating the area. This is to see beyond the trends of the present situation,
vision a less stressful future and build scenarios of the area-based rehabilitation
required. This allows stakeholders to envision what can be done and to consider the
options available and programme the area-based rehabilitation as a lead-in to project
implementation.
Table 1: Indicators and thematic groups
Indicator Thematic group

housing social
health social
safety and security (crime) social
culture social
employment and training economic
transport environmental
land use and open space environmental
Improving the quality of life. These targets are what the development should achieve
in terms of project implementation. Through appropriate monitoring and evaluation, it
should indicate any improvement in the quality of life using the indicators and
thematic groupings set out in Table 1.
Although CoSGOP provides a logical framework for the regeneration process, and for setting
targest and indicators, it is inadequately represents all aspects of assessment. Indeed some
of its stages may not require the use of assessment methods, i.e. improvement programme
and projects/implementation. Moreover, some elements are too restricted in terms of
assessment, i.e. stakeholder analysis, which could be seen as a technique in itself, and
problems and potentials, which does not consider data collection and scoping techniques.
5.3 Assessment Methodology for CoSGOP LUDA Improvement Process

The assessment methodology is constructed around the five evaluation steps: diagnosis,
visioning, programming, implementing and monitoring described earlier.
The assessment methodology has been developed in order to identify which methods and
techniques can be used for evaluation and assessment and to identify the key stakeholders
responsible for decision-making at each stage of the process [see handbook 5: process
methods]. The principal methods and techniques that can be used at each stage of the
process are detailed in section 7 of this handbook.
The assessment methodology is also important for establishing the main actions and rules
involved in assessment, drawn from guidance relating to the process methods: strategic
environment assessment (SEA), sustainability assessment and prospective process through
scenarios [see handbook 5: process methods]. As SEA is now part of European legislation,
LUDA Compendium
i.e. the SEA directive, it is essential that this procedure is fully integrated into any planning
process structure as part of the overall regeneration of LUDAs.
Collaborative Strategic Goal Orientated Programming (CoSGOP) forms the strategic

decision-making framework for LUDAs. As shown in Figure 6, attempts should be made to
integrate the assessment methodology into strategic decision-making. This is to ensure that
social, economic and environmental problems and effects are completely accounted for, and
to enable stakeholders, particularly citizens, to be involved at crucial stages in the process.
Figure 6: Integration of the evaluation methodology into CoSGOP
Strategic decision making Assessment Methodology

for LUDA rehabilitation Integrated
(CoSGOP)
1. Stakeholder Analysis
Diagnosis
2. Problems / Potentials
3. Goals / Alternatives Visioning
4. Improvement Programme
Programming
5. Impact Assessment
6. Projects / Implementation Implementing
7. Monitoring / Adjustment Monitoring and evaluation
6. What methods and techniques are appropriate for evaluating the

sustainability of urban regeneration?
6.1 Legal requirements in Europe
6.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Directive 85/377/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC requires member states to ensure
that projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should not be
given development consent until their likely environmental impacts have been fully assessed.
Projects may be public or private. A distinction is drawn between projects which are subject
to a mandatory assessment process and those which are subject to an assessment if the
member state believes that they will have serious environmental impacts. These are listed in
Annex I and Annex II respectively. Annex I projects include: oil refineries, nuclear power
stations, airports, motorways and quarries over 25 hectares. The list of Annex II projects is
much longer. It includes: reclaiming land from the sea, quarries under 25 hectares, wind
farms, car factories, shopping centres, motorway service areas, golf courses, caravan sites
and theme parks. Annex II generally specifies minimum sizes. For example, golf courses and
caravan sites under one hectare are usually exempt (Watson, 2003).

LUDA Compendium
If a project requires an EIA the developer must prepare an environmental statement for
consideration by the planning authority. The essential elements in the environmental
statement are specified in Annex IV. They include: a description of the project; an outline of
the options considered by the developer; a description of the aspects of the environment
likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project; an outline of the measures
envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant effects on the
environment; and a non-technical summary (Watson, 2003). The directive also stipulates
that public authorities must involve stakeholders in assessment procedures [see also
section 6.4: participation with stakeholders].
The Directive 97/11/EC can be viewed at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-

legal-text/9711.htm
6.1.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

As part of the drive towards sustainable development, the EU has recently adopted a
Directive on Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes, otherwise know
as the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC (Fuller, 2004). The directive has to have been interpreted
and implemented in EU member states by 21 July 2004. The new directive is intended to
complement directive 85/337/EEC, which already requires environmental assessment of
specific types of project, i.e. project EIA (Legal500.com).
The SEA Directive requires an environmental assessment of certain plans and programmes
which are likely to have significant environmental effects. A formal environmental
assessment is mandatory for:
plans and programmes for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport,
waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and
country planning or land use;
an assessment which has been deemed necessary under Directive 92/43/EEC (the
Habitats Directive) (ODPM, 2005):
Where plans or programmes determine the use of small areas at local level or are the result
of minor modifications to existing plans, member states may exempt them from SEA if they
are considered to have no environmental effects. National defence, civil emergency and
financial plans and programmes are also exempt (ODPM, 2004).
The SEA Directive requires that an environmental report is prepared as part of the SEA of a
plan or programme. In the report, the likely significant effects on the environment of
implementing the plan, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and
geographical scope of the plan, are identified, described and evaluated (Environment

LUDA Compendium
Agency). The environmental authorities and the wider public must be given the opportunity
to comment on the draft plan or programme and accompanying environmental report (EEB
2004).
The SEA Directive 2001/42/EC can be viewed at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-legal-text/0142_en.pdf
6.2 Policies, plans programmes and projects

In relation to EIA and SEA, a tiered approach relating plans, policies and programmes is
necessary, see Figure 7. A policy provides a framework for the establishment of plans; plans
provide a framework for programmes; and programmes lead to projects. A policy thus may
be considered as the inspiration and guidance for action, a plan as a set of coordinated and
timed objectives for implementing the policy, and a programme as a set of projects in a
particular area. The tiered system can apply at the national level, regional and local levels.
As illustrated in Figure 7, the level of environmental assessment application has been

extended from the EIA project level to higher tiers of action, including the strategic
environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes. SEA has largely been
introduced to ensure that environmental issues are addressed earlier in the policy making
process.
In terms of LUDAs, the level of application is generally perceived to be at the lower tiers of
action, i.e. at the programme and project level. The strategic policies and plans provide the
context and constraints within which LUDA regeneration has to develop. However it is
important to note that policies and plans will be required within LUDA regeneration in support
of strategic decision-making in the programme (e.g. to direct project selection, formulation
and prioritisation) and for tactical decision making within projects (e.g. a design guide is an
instrument to influence decision making in building projects in a LUDA programme).

LUDA Compendium
Figure 7: The tiered system of policies, plans, programmes and projects in relation to
environmental assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Integrated Cascading
Policy Policies objectives
Appraisal
(no Regs)
Plans/strategies SEA
SEA Regs. Programmes

2004
Projects EIA
Adapted from: Environment Agency
The principal methods for tackling each of these levels are shown in Table 2. SEA is used to
assess policies but it is not a statutory requirement under the SEA Directive. Sustainability
appraisal [go to handbook 5: process methods] is a national procedure for assessing policies
and plans in the UK, i.e. as part of regional spatial strategies and local development plans;
however it can also be used as stand-alone method in other European countries.
Alternatively, the futures method: prospective process through scenarios [go to handbook 5:
process methods] is generic in nature and therefore can be used in all manner of situations
either to assess policies, plans, programmes and/or projects.
Table 2: Principal methods for addressing policies, plans, programmes and projects
Levels
Policies Plans Programmes Projects
Environmental Impact
X
Assessment
Strategic Environmental
x X X
Assessment
Sustainability Appraisal
(an e.g. of a national X X
procedure)
Prospective Process
X X X X
through Scenarios
6.3 Economic, social and environmental problems

Urban areas can suffer from range of problems at the same time. In LUDAs these problems
have been classified under four headings
economic

LUDA Compendium
environment
social
urban structure.
Table 3 shows the most common problems experienced in the LUDA cities against these
headings
Table 3: Most common problems experienced in the six LUDA cities
Economic aspects Environmental aspects
local commercial activity emissions from local industry, households,

endogenous dynamic of economy traffic etc.
dependency from outside investment pollution of soil
investment (private and public sector)
fluctuation of enterprises (in/out migration)
demand of retail goods and services
supply of retail goods and services
land values / rental values
range of local employment opportunities
Social aspects Urban structure aspects
level of income image/perception from outside

level of poverty image/perception from inside
level of social transfers townscape/urban structure
costs of housing relative to revenue residential quality
condition of buildings scope of
renovation
condition of buildings sanitary
installations
quantity and quality of social-cultural
infrastructure
quantity and quality of technical
infrastructure
Table 4 shows how frequently each type of problem occurred in the six LUDA cities. The
results show that the economic and urban structure problems are most frequent in the worst
affected areas of the six cities.
Table 4: Frequency of problems in the six LUDA cities
Type of problem % frequency Rank

Economic 70 =1
Urban structure 70 =1
Social 62 3
Environmental 50 4

LUDA Compendium
The outcome of this piece of work is the recognition that each type of sustainability problem
needs to be tackled and assessed using a range of methods and techniques. The principal
methods and techniques for addressing each type of problem are shown in table 5. As
economic and urban structure problems emerged as being the most problematic across the
six cities, greater emphasis should be placed on methods and techniques to address these
issues. Of course the ideal situation would be methods that deal with a range of problems,
thus making advances in quality of life and the sustainable urban environment of LUDA, for
example: quality of life assessment.
Table 5: Principal methods for addressing economic, social, environmental and urban
structure problems
Problems
Economic Social Environment Urban structure
Methods
Community Impact
x X x X
Evaluation
Cost benefit
X X X
analysis
Ecological Footprint X
Economic Impact
X
Assessment
Environmental
impact assessment X
(EIA)
Life cycle analysis X
Quality of Life
X X X X
Assessment
Social cost-benefit
X X X
analysis
Social Impact
X
Assessment
Strategic
Environmental X x
Assessment (SEA)
Sustainability
X X X X
Appraisal
Prospective
Process through X X X x
Scenarios (PPtS)
X: to a greater extent; x: to a lesser extent

LUDA Compendium
6.4 Participation with stakeholders
6.4.1 Why engage with stakeholders?

The principles of sustainable development and community based planning outlined in
section 2 emphasise the importance of participation of all stakeholders and that this is now a
cornerstone of the EUs urban development strategy.
The EUs environmental impact assessment directive [see also section 6.1.1], amended in
1997, stipulates that public authorities must involve stakeholders in assessment procedures.
A planning authority has to consider, first, whether a proposed project is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment. If so, the authority must ensure that the applicant
carries out an assessment and prepares and submits to the planning authority a report that
identifies, describes and assesses the effects that the project is likely to have on the
environment. The process is referred to as environmental impact assessment (EIA), the
report as the environmental statement (ES). Members of the public, and statutory consultees,
must be given the opportunity to comment on the ES.
EIA regulations do not require that stakeholders should be consulted about all urban
regeneration initiatives or applications for planning permission. In the main they apply to
large-scale developments where there is obvious potential for environment damage. But the
size of a project is not the only criterion. The key issue is whether a project is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment. Small-scale projects in, or close to, sensitive areas can
have effects just as damaging as those from large-scale development.
Public participation in environmental impact assessment in the EU is governed by the Aarhus

Convention. This establishes three rights:
access to environmental information - the right of everyone to receive environmental

information held by public authorities
public participation in environmental decision-making the right to participate from an

early stage in environmental decision-making
access to justice the right to challenge, in a court of law, public decisions that have
been made without respecting these previous two rights or environmental law in general.
Under the convention, arrangements have to be made by public authorities to enable citizens
and environmental organisations to comment on plans and programmes relating to the
environment and to proposals for projects affecting the environment. Information has to be
provided on the final decisions taken about these and the reasons for them.
The European Commission ratified the Aarhus Convention in February 2005. The status of
your countrys ratification of the convention can be found at www.unece.org/pp/ctreaty.htm.

LUDA Compendium
An environmental democracy clearing house, http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/, has
been launched to showcase good practice.
6.4.2 How to engage with stakeholders

Instruction on how to provide for public participation under the Aarhus Convention is covered
by EU Directive 2003/35/EC, http://europa.eu.int/eur-
lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_156/l_15620030625en00170024.pdf.
Effective public participation in the taking of decisions is required to enable the public to
express, and decision-makers to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be
relevant to those decisions. This increases the accountability and transparency of the
decision-making process and contributes to public awareness of environmental issues and
support for the decisions taken. Reasonable time frames have to be provided allowing
sufficient time for each of the different stages of public participation required by the directive.
The public has to be informed - early in the environmental decision-making procedures and,
at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided - of:
the request for development consent
the fact that the project is subject to an environmental impact assessment
details of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision
the nature of the possible decisions
an indication of the availability of the information gathered
an indication of the times and places, where and means by which the relevant information
will be made available, and
details of the arrangements for public participation.
The public then has to be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the
environmental decision-making procedures. The public is entitled to express comments and
opinions when all options are open to the competent authority before the decision on the
request for development consent is taken. When a decision is made, the competent authority
has to inform the public of that decision. And, having examined the concerns and opinions
expressed by the public concerned, the main reasons on which the decision is based,
including information about the public participation process employed.
The directive does not specify precisely how public participation should occur. This is left up
to signatories. In the UK, for instance, the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office
published a Code of Practice on Consultation in January 2004,
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/consultation/documents/pdf/code.pdf. The code

LUDA Compendium
applies to all UK public consultations by government departments and agencies, including
consultations on EU directives. But UK non-departmental public bodies and local authorities
are also encouraged to follow it. The code of practice highlights the importance of consulting
all types of stakeholders, including those hard to reach groups such as small businesses,
children, consumers and those from minority communities. Pro-active engagement with
individuals, organisations and trade associations is also stressed as important. And written
consultation is identified as not the only or even always the most effective means of
consultation. Instead other forms of consultation are promoted:
stakeholder meetings
public meetings
web forums
public surveys
focus groups
local events; and
targeted leaflet campaigns.
6.4.3 Who should be involved?

Table 6: Types of stakeholders involved in urban regeneration
Policy makers Planners Private investors Service Citizens

providers
Elected officials Town planners Property Transport and People who live in
developers utility service a particular
providers lneighbourhood
City Designers (i.e. Building and Facilities People who work
administrators architects, urban infrastructure managers locally (business
designers, owners owners and staff)
landscape
architects)
Local authorities Consultants (e.g. Banks and other Marketing officers Community group
environmental infrastructure leaders and
consultants) owners members
Government Development Entrepreneurs Health and safety

agencies control officers officers
Non-government Insurers
organisations
(NGOs)
Research
institutions

LUDA Compendium
Table 7: Stakeholder groups involved in the application of the main methods
Stakeholder groups
Policy Planners Private Service Citizens
makers investors providers
Main methods
Community Impact
X X
Evaluation
Cost benefit
X X X
analysis
Ecological Footprint X X
Economic Impact
X X X
Assessment
Environmental
impact assessment X X X
(EIA)
Life cycle analysis
X X X
(LCA)
Multi-criteria
X X X
analysis (MCA)
Quality of Life
X X X X X
Assessment
Social cost-benefit
X X
analysis
Social Impact
X X X X
Assessment
Strategic
Environmental X X X X
Assessment (SEA)
Sustainability
X X X
Appraisal
Prospective
Process through X X X X X
Scenarios (PPtS)
6.4.4 What are the benefits of engaging with stakeholders?

Public participation has been at the forefront of the regeneration agenda since the 1990s.
Evidence suggests (Rogers, 2004) that where resources have been devoted to community
engagement - from the earliest possible stage and throughout the lifetime of projects - then
there is a greater chance that they will be robust and sustainable in the period after
regeneration funding has ended. There also seems to be a strong case for arguing that
effective regeneration is more likely to come from supporting and fostering existing
communities and enabling them to develop their surroundings themselves, rather than from
imposing top-down initiatives. The evidence to date also indicates that, at its best, community
engagement can:
empower citizens
make a significant difference to the way services are designed and run
secure widely valued policy outcomes.

LUDA Compendium
It evidently also works best when communities are engaged across a range of services
strongly suggesting a need for public authorities to develop a strategic, across-the-board
approach. Successful community engagement requires:
citizens willing and able to get involved, and

public organisations and services willing and able to make best use of active citizens.
It is vital that citizens and communities have the capacity and inclination to engage with the
public sector and organise themselves. Much more effort needs to be put into understanding
the skills and support that citizens need to engage effectively in urban regeneration. This is
particularly true for hard to reach groups that are currently least likely to be engaged.
6.5 Futures workshops in urban regeneration

A range of ways for supporting public participation and consultation during urban
regeneration currently exists, futures workshops being just one. Although futures workshops
are not one of the most common means, they are becoming increasingly popular in the
planning arena, particularly when carried out in conjunction with, or as part of a larger plan or
strategy (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998).
Futures workshops are a particular type of meeting that follow a certain set of rules. During
the workshop, time is allocated for brainstorming, discussion, presentation, and sometimes
voting, with work usually shifting between plenary and group sessions. The workshop
environment is highly suited for open discussion and ensures that all participants get their
say so that all ideas can be tabled for debate. Work starts with a commonly recognised
problem and then looks for solutions to form the basis for visions aimed towards a final action
plan. These visions constitute a new bank of ideas and a basis for further discussion and
assessment among experts and politicians, and they can also be communicated to a broader
circle of citizens who are likely to be affected by the regeneration process (Andersen &
Jaeger, 2001).
Without doubt, a diversity of formats and approaches to futures workshops exists; the
Prospective Process through Scenarios approach, advocated by The Futures Academy,
DIT, is one such approach and is outlined in the Futures Workshops: A Handbook.
6.3.1 When is the best time to implement a futures workshop?

If futures workshops are to play a role in encouraging participation, timing is critical. The ideal
time to undertake such a futures workshop is at the earliest stage possible (preferably prior

LUDA Compendium
to the development of specific plans or policies) giving people an effective opportunity to
begin to participate in the process and to influence decisions that have not already been
taken. Undertaking a futures workshop at the initial phase of the regeneration process not
only encourages participation, but also allows for the incorporation of creativity into the
overall process. Perhaps the most significant advantage of these workshops is the potential
they offer for consensus-building, and furthermore, for mobilizing collective effort in a
structured way so as to enable the building of a common language between all involved in
the regeneration effort from day one (Healey et al., 1995). Futures workshops, therefore, can
help lay the adequate foundations for building stronger, more effective and longer-lasting
partnerships. In summary, if a futures workshop is undertaken at an early enough stage, it
can kick-start the regeneration process through:
consensus-building;
inspiring and motivating people to act;
creating of a new forum for decision-making; and
encouraging greater citizen involvement and participation (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998).
6.3.2 Who should be involved in a futures workshop?

It is important to involve a broad range of stakeholders in futures workshops. These might
include small businesses, investment interests, private interests, developers, community
workers, NGOs and voluntary organisations, minority groups, academics and local citizens.
The key to a successful workshop, however, is how the participants interact, so that work can
flow smoothly and continue to do so over the span of the overall urban regeneration process;
success, therefore, largely depends on the establishment of a co-operative working network.
When a wide range of actors are involved in these workshops, the multi-dimensional nature
of a problem can be approached with more knowledge, more broad-ranging experience and
more versatility in order to achieve results (Carter, 2000). Each actor or stakeholder group
comes with its own expertise and so contributes its experiences - a necessary feature of
workshops that contrasts with more conventional top-down approaches to participation and
community planning. Owing to the informal nature of futures workshops, it is often easier to
get people involved, particularly those hard to reach groups. This renders futures workshops
highly inclusive and consequently sparks peoples interest and engages them more readily
than other ways of working.
It is also important to ensure that local people are involved and included in futures
workshops; the original community should be encouraged to become actively involved. This
is particularly pertinent when discussing issues concerning local identity and core community
values, critical to the long-term success of regeneration. The exchange of professional
insight and users experience is critical to generate new knowledge. It does not simply suffice
to consult technical experts, but rather the inclusion of local actors is a must. Futures
workshops need to include a variety of social actors, from different places and sectors of

LUDA Compendium
society in order to create new ideas and produce effective proposals for sustainable urban
regeneration (Andersen & Jaeger, 2001). Finally, ensuring that willing citizens are involved
is critical to the success of any futures workshop.
6.3.3 What happens after a futures workshop?

Perhaps the most difficult part of undertaking a futures workshop is what happens
afterwards. Scaling-up such a process requires significant resources, both human and
capital, and also requires the long-term will and commitment of policy-makers. The major
challenge in this sense is: to make others listen to the outcome.
6.3.4 What are the benefits of using futures workshops?

Futures workshops are not a common component of the toolkits used to support public
participation in environmental impact assessment or in urban regeneration or the planning
process in general (ODPM, 2003). However using futures techniques can offer real benefits,
especially where they require stakeholders from different backgrounds, and with competing
interests, to formulate and test scenarios about the futures they want to see come about.
(Building Futures, 2005).
Scenarios are a powerful way of engaging policy makers, design consultants, community
workers and lay members of the public in thinking about the longer-term future of
neighbourhoods and towns. They offer an early opportunity for exploring possible futures in a
way that can help people to make leaps of the imagination, free from the burden of current
constraints, as well as to be clear about what their underlying motives and intentions are.
Scenarios can also be employed not just to clarify the range of hard choices available, but
the social, economic and environmental goals that drive these and their consequences.
When working with scenarios, it is important to make clear the range of different economic,
social and environmental choices that confront a community trying to regenerate itself.
Scenarios need to be constructed so that they give voice to all the types of stakeholder
involved and to illustrate the underlying motives and intentions, fears and aspirations of each
of these groups, regardless of their current power to impose their own preferred solutions.
For instance, it is important to employ scenarios that make explicit what is cherished in a
locality and what is seen as expendable.
Scenarios should be based on realistic but aspirational assumptions. They should also be
tested against a broad range of economic, social and environmental criteria. The objective
here is to find the scenario that performs robustly against all three criteria. And it is
necessary to be suspicious of any that performs well on some but badly on others.

LUDA Compendium
Scenarios are particularly useful to raise peoples time horizons. These are often cripplingly
short term often only two or three years ahead, seldom more than five. Scenarios can be
used to test the continued viability of proposals over an extended period of time for
example, beyond the current generation handing over to the next. They can also be
employed to expand the scale and the scope of what needs to be done.
Using scenarios can help keep the choices available to stakeholders open for longer. They
can also clarify the goals that lie behind these choices, and the means of achieving them.
Importantly, in urban regeneration, this can happen before goals become buried beneath
physical proposals in master plans and before funding begins. They can help untangle the
complexity of choices and delivery mechanisms holding them up for comparison, weighing
them against each other. Any option preferred by stakeholders can then be treated as a
desired end state. And backcasting techniques can be employed to identify what needs to be
put in place, by when, for this desired future to be brought about successfully.
As a result, scenarios are a useful mechanism for building consensus and for harnessing
conflicts so that they can be exploited positively. If this clarity is absent and plans push
ahead without community support, then there is a strong chance that a regeneration
programme will fail. If carefully selected, scenarios can be used to explore innovative
solutions and introduce a front-end contribution from developers - so often missing from
public sector-led regeneration initiatives. And, if they are well-chosen, scenarios can be used
to raise the issue of design quality that has yet to become part of the general currency
between stakeholders when negotiating urban futures.
7. Which methods and techniques are appropriate for stages in the

process?
The assessment process was outlined earlier in the handbook [see: section 5]: diagnosis,
visioning, programming, implementing and monitoring. The main actions involved at each
stage of the process are shown at the start of each sub-section. The actions highlighted in
blue are the most involved in terms of assessment; that is to say they require the use of
assessment methods outside the standard, generic techniques, such as expert judgement.

LUDA Compendium
7.1 Diagnosing LUDAs

Actions
Identify driving forces of change
Determine main issues and trends
Stakeholder analysis
Resource and limitation assessment
Identification of SD indicators and targets
Information collection
Identification of problems and potentials
Futures methods and techniques can be used during diagnosis to encourage more
imaginative thinking into the planning process for sustainable urban regeneration and
encourage people to work together from the outset of the process towards a common goal or
vision.
They are particularly useful at this stage for undertaking the following three tasks:
1. Identify the Driving Forces of Change:
This task focuses on identifying a broad-ranging set of driving forces of change, in other
words, the forces driving or shaping the future in different directions. It is important not to
ignore seemingly less significant or hidden forces at play; critical thinking is crucial in
order to fully appreciate the dynamics that are potentially most relevant to the future.
Horizon Scanning: Horizon scanning is one of the most useful and well-known futures
techniques to use at this stage as it represents a suitable starting point for preliminary
research and data collection to identify and monitor emerging trends, issues and signals
of change in the external environment by undertaking a systematic review of literature
and other modes of communication.
The six sector approach is recommended as the most appropriate way to undertake
horizon scanning and it entails scanning or tracking information under each of the
following six sectors: social, demographic, economic, environmental, governance and
technological.
2. Determine the Main Issues and Emerging Trends

Determining the main issues and trends that are likely to impact on the future is, in a
sense, an extension of the previous task. The value in determining these emerging
issues is that it requires a great deal of imaginative thinking; it encourages people to
think outside the box and focus on the most uncertain and sometimes unexpected
issues.

LUDA Compendium
This task does not simply involve trend extrapolation; it requires a full consideration of
what factors, emerging or unforeseen, might matter most in the near future. An attempt
must be made, therefore, to pinpoint the inevitable uncertainties surrounding the future
that are so often ignored or dismissed. There are several complicated techniques that
can be used to do this, but usually the most helpful is to use horizon scanning.
Additionally, strategic conversations represent one of the most important starting points
during diagnosis because they invite the foresight of experts or exceptional individuals
into the process.
Strategic Conversations: A strategic conversation is a discussion on a particular issue or
policy area that should result in a clearer understanding of that issue. Strategic
conversations are special forms of in-depth dialogue that allow for two-way participation,
especially on the part of the interviewer, who takes a more active and creative role than
normally permitted during traditional approaches to interviewing (Ratcliffe, 2002). They
can be undertaken for a number of reasons in addition to identifying issues and trends,
such as: discovering the concerns of key players about the future, identifying burning
questions of the moment, assisting in understanding predictability, impact and
uncertainty, and starting to form a strategic vision.
3. Identify the Critical Uncertainties and establish the baseline environment:

The next task during diagnosis is to identify the critical uncertainties and establish the
baseline environment of LUDA. Critical uncertainties are the issues or trends that are
most likely to play a significant role in the future, and are characterised by their potentially
high impact on the future and high level of uncertainty. The best way to ensure the
critical uncertainties are accurately identified is to rate each issue or trend that was
previously identified according to the level of impact and degree of uncertainty. This can
be carried out using survey questionnaires.
Survey Questionnaires: Survey questionnaires are useful techniques for collecting data
about attitudes, beliefs and opinions from a carefully selected, predefined panel of
individuals or experts. The data is obtained by asking the group to respond to a set of
pre-prepared questions. They can be useful as futures techniques as they facilitate the
collection of qualitative, soft data concerning complex issues about future uncertainty
that might not as easily be examined using other research techniques. A sample survey
questionnaire used by the Futures Academy is presented in Figure 8.
However, survey questionnaires are just one of many data collection tools that can help
establish the baseline environment of LUDA (social, economic and environmental data),
which, in turn contributes towards the conception of problems and potentials significant in
the LUDA. Both the baseline environment and the problems and potentials will enable the
formation of strategic objectives, targets and indicators in the next step [visioning].

LUDA Compendium
Figure 8: Sample Futures Survey Questionnaire
1. Under the following headings, identify what you think are the main issues and trends that could affect the
future over the next 20 years (Please note that some responses may overlap headings). Rate impact and
uncertainty on the scale where 1 = very high impact / uncertainty, 2 = high impact / uncertainty, 3 = low impact /
uncertainty, 4 = very low impact / uncertainty.
Level Likelihood
Main Issues & Trends of of
Impact Uncertainty
A. Society
(i)
(ii)
B. Demography
(i)
(ii)
C. Environment
(i)
(ii)
D. Economy
(i)
(ii)
E. Government
(i)
(ii)
Other methods and techniques that are useful for diagnosing LUDAs include:
Cross impact analysis: CIA can be used in support of horizon scanning and survey
questionnaires to help pinpoint the inevitable uncertainties surrounding the future that are
so often ignored or dismissed.
SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis: This technique can be
used at many stages of the process but is most effective at the diagnosis stage in
consolidating the drivers for change and assisting with the conception of problems and
potentials, i.e. weaknesses and opportunities. The main drivers for change provide a
framework within which SWOT analysis can be carried out, for instance in determining
the opportunities and threats of the economic position of the city/LUDA (Roberts and
Sykes, 2000).
Expert Judgement: This generic technique can be used in support of strategic

conversations in obtaining experts views on a particular issue and as a form of data
collection, i.e. as an alternative to the Delphi technique. Expert judgement is more
versatile than strategic conversations as it can be used not just at the strategic policy
level, but also at the very detailed site/project level.

LUDA Compendium
7.1.1 Diagnosis: which stakeholders are likely to be involved?

It is most likely that policy makers, i.e. key decision-makers, including elected
representatives, administrators, local authorities, governmental agencies, NGOs and
research institutions will be employed at this stage of the process. Citizens may be consulted
over identifying the range of issues and establishing priorities relating to the area in question.
7.2 Visioning the sustainable regeneration of LUDAs
Actions
Formulation of strategic objectives,
targets and indicators
Generation of alternatives (& scenarios)
Futures methods and techniques are vital to this stage of the process and the best way to
implement these is during a futures workshop. Workshops provide a fertile environment for
active participation and imaginative thinking, and they can be run very effectively for
problem-solving. Futures workshops can also help alleviate democratic deficits that might
exist within decision-making processes, by including a range of stakeholders that might not
ordinarily get the chance to contribute to the process and voice their opinions (Jungk &
Mullert, 1987). The following describes how such a workshop can be put into practice. First,
a brief outline of what needs to be done prior to the workshop is given.
Preparation: Preparing to implement a futures workshop is as important as any step that

takes place on the actual day. To run a successful workshop, it is vital that from the very
beginning, the right people are involved, in the right place and at the right time. It is also
during preparation that any findings from the techniques used during diagnosis (horizon
scanning, strategic conversations and survey questionnaires) should be documented. These
findings can then be incorporated into work during the workshop.
Following preparation, the workshop can get under way. Almost any futures methods or
techniques can be implemented during futures workshops, however, the following are
described here: scenario development, wind tunnel testing and visioning.

LUDA Compendium
1. Scenario Development
This step of the workshop usually involves developing and fleshing out three or more stories
or scenarios for each alternative generated. Scenarios are alternative images of the future
that portray possible future events or environments. Scenarios are not predictions of the
future but rather well-worked, vivid descriptions that resemble a set of stories to express
multiple perspectives of possible future events by taking into account critical uncertainties
about the future. Scenarios are powerful tools to enlighten and produce better policy and
strategy decisions by encouraging us to rehearse the future so that the readiness to act in
the face of uncertainty almost becomes second nature (Schwartz, 1998). The first part of
scenario development is to agree the axes (most usually illustrated in a matrix) that will
determine the basic characteristics or the building blocks from which the final scenarios will
eventually evolve. This lays the foundations for the scenarios by helping to produce the
logical rationale and framework for the scenarios. Agreeing the axes during the workshop
involves returning to the critical uncertainties and selecting which two might play prominent
roles in the future with interesting yet challenging outcomes. This can involve a long debate
between the participants, which should be chaired by the facilitator. Once the decision has
been reached, the two critical uncertainties should be crossed. Crossing two uncertainties in
a matrix gives rise to four possible scenarios. If the uncertainties have been chosen
intelligently, the quadrants should represent the most divergent futures.
Fleshing out the scenarios involves expanding and developing the scenario logics to produce
useful, coherent narratives about the future; the final scenarios. There is no correct way to
flesh out the scenarios, but there are a number of important guidelines that can be followed.
I. It is best to flesh out three or four differentiated scenarios to provide contrasting images
of what the future might hold.
II. The scenarios should consider the factors and actors outlined in Figure 9
Figure 6: Factors & actors
Factors Actors
a beginning, a middle and an end state main players in the field of interest
an approximate time line large, small and traditional
stakeholders
key events that make things happen
new entrants
early indicators of change (signals that
the scenario is unfolding) what regulators are doing
a catchy name what society is demanding
III. The final scenarios created must be both coherent and creative. It is at this point that
the imagination should be let run riot; control comes later.

LUDA Compendium
IV. The scenarios should be fleshed out and exaggerated in opposite directions to create
images of future worlds that are as different from each other as possible. It is important,
however, not to produce a positive and negative scenario; resorting to this type of
creation should be avoided at all times as it produces less than useful scenarios for
future decision-making purposes.
V. The driving forces, issues and trends identified previously during diagnosis should be
weaved into the basic logics to consider how they affect each story and to determine
their relevance in each. For example, one uncertainty might prove critical in one or two
of the scenarios but not in others, although most, if not all, of the critical uncertainties
will have a particular influence on the development of the future in the final three or four
scenarios. It is the critical uncertainties that serve as the base for scenario design. It is
not enough to simply describe them in a linear cause-effect relation, but rather it is the
combination of these different factors that matters most when fleshing out each
scenario.
There are several ways this can be done during the workshop, although this is inevitably
up to the facilitator and/or the project manager to decide. Scenario formats vary to
include different kind of analogue methods such as:
a narrative story;
a slide set or powerpoint presentation;
a glossy leaflet or booklet;
a theatre play;
a news-script; and
a poem.
2. Wind Tunnel Testing

Testing alternative policy options ensures that the most appropriate policy measures are
suggested during the workshop on the basis of the scenarios created. Following the
construction of the future scenarios, policy proposals should be formulated from an analysis
of the issues and trends highlighted in each. The participants must think objectively at this
stage about how certain future circumstances or events might be achieved and how others
might be avoided by formulating robust policy.
Once the policy measures have been formulated, testing them offers an understanding of the
intricate details of each, and how they might play out in the alternative future scenarios. It
essentially involves considering each policy measure within each scenario, how the decision
might look in each, what the implications might be and whether or not there are any
deficiencies. This stage is also known as the wind tunnel test (Ratcliffe, 2000).

LUDA Compendium
3. Visioning
Producing a preferred future vision or prospective is the final step of the workshop. In fact, it
is usually only the basis or foundation of the prospective that is created during the workshop;
the remaining work takes place afterwards.
The preferred future vision yields best results once it has been created following the
completion of all previous steps discussed. Any deviation from the process as described here
would undoubtedly result in the creation of a premature vision, a vision created without
sufficient consultation or participative thinking. The combination of steps carried out during
the workshop to this point helps participants prepare effectively to create their preferred
future vision; the participants have learned to explore what the future might look like and how
this might impact on their environment, thereby gaining an insight and awareness about the
future that might not ordinarily have been achieved.
The vision is created during the workshop following an in-depth analysis of the alternative
scenarios created and the ideas and thoughts provoked by them. The scenarios help create
a clearer picture for the workshop participants of the elements they might want to include
(and/or omit) from their preferred future vision. The scenarios also help highlight areas of
future opportunity, as well as areas of future threat that render consideration when producing
the vision.
Implementation: It is important to remember that the process does not simply culminate on
the final day of the workshop but rather it is an ongoing process that has wider implications
beyond the event itself. It is vital to ensure that the results and outcomes of the workshop are
not produced in vain. They must be adequately addressed, documented and subsequently
worked through following the workshop so that implementation can be realised.
The different steps undertaken during the workshop all demand a high level of strategic
thinking, following which it is time to move to strategic planning. Traditionally, strategic
thinking has been separated from strategic planning, and quite deliberately so. The strength
in this separation is that it allows for creative and innovative thinking to take place without the
need to take real action. The obvious weakness in this approach is that imaginative thinking
becomes isolated as an event that takes place, during a workshop for example, without
follow up action by those with the relevant decision-making power. The power of futures
methods and techniques are that they provide a bridge or kind of scaffolding between
strategic thinking and strategic planning across which ideas and action can continue to pass.
Other technique(s) that are useful at the visioning stage include:

LUDA Compendium
Brainstorming: Brainstorming sessions are an interesting way to involve people in the
overall futures exercise. They provide an opportunity to exchange ideas and investigate
different perspectives throughout the futures exercise through simple but effective
dialogue.
7.2.1 Visioning: which stakeholders are likely to be involved?

The very nature of visioning is itself participatory; a visioning exercise would be futile without
the consultation and/or participation of a range of stakeholders, i.e. policy makers,
developers, planners, service providers and citizens. However it is particularly important to
be sensitive to the communitys wishes. Thus developers and planners should be actively
engaged in this stage as the outcomes have a crucial bearing on the development proposals,
but their role will vary depending on individual local circumstances, the degree of consensus
or lack of same, and the local politics and power structure. Financial power is a key
consideration but should not be the only driver otherwise some stakeholders may be
alienated with potentially very negative results.
7.3 Assessing plans, programmes and projects (programming)
Actions
Prepare plan / improvement programme
Predicting impacts
Evaluating alternatives
Impact mitigation
In terms of assessment and evaluation this stage is the most involved in the LUDA
improvement process, because the preferred vision has to be translated into a coherent set
of practical options, policies and proposals which make up the draft plan or what is
alternatively named improvement programme. These will include a number of physical,
social and environmental improvements and usually involve the design of a small number of
alternative scenarios, which then have to be evaluated in terms of their positive and negative
impacts. The application of design principles through development of a masterplan plus a
design guide including cost planning is important at this stage of the process. To select
between various alternatives involves the continuation of methods such as cost-benefit
analysis employed earlier in the process.
Once the alternative scenarios have been designed and proposals put into place it is then
necessary to identify changes to the baseline environment that are predicted to arise from
the plan, programme and/or proposed alternatives. This will involve describing these
changes in terms of their magnitude, geographical scope, time-scale, and likelihood of each
impact. Impact assessment methods will be employed at this stage, such as environmental
impact assessment and social impact assessment, as well as those that were initiated earlier
in the process. Prediction techniques such as GIS and conceptual models will be useful for
LUDA Compendium
identifying environmental effects, particularly cumulative effects resulting from small, often
indirect impacts.
The next action will involve taking the objective predictions and making an evaluation about
whether these impacts are significant. This will usually continue the involvement of the said
impact assessment methods, as well as qualitative assessments, such as Quality of Life
assessment which is particularly concerned with who wins and who looses under the
strategic action. The evaluation of alternatives will often include their comparison using the
indicators and objectives developed earlier in the process. This comparison is typically done
in a matrix format with the alternatives along one axis and the indicators along the other.
Where the decision relating to the alternative is more complex, multi-criteria methods may be
employed, such as regime analysis, analytic hierarchy process, flag model and concordance
analysis, which take into account a number of different factors, based on scoring and
weighting techniques. The outcome will be the preferred alternative(s) to be taken forward
into the improvement action plan.
The impact mitigation sub-stage aims to minimize any negative impacts, optimize any
positive ones and enhance sustainability in other ways if possible. The end result should be a
list of agreed measures to change the strategic action change where relevant and/or set a
context for future projects. These may include changes to the wording of the strategic action,
the addition of new components and requirements to substitute or offset for certain types of
impacts. Proposing mitigation measures involves flexibility and timing rather than any
particular set of techniques, although expert judgement would be useful at this point in the
process (Therivel, 2004).
Once the preferred alternative(s) has been chosen and mitigation measures identified, the
environmental/sustainability report should be prepared. This will include the likely significant
effects on the environment and people of implementing the plan, and reasonable alternatives
taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan (EC, 2001). In essence
the environmental/sustainability report should bring together the findings of the process thus
far.
7.3.1 Programming: which stakeholders are likely to be involved?

This stage will mainly involve policy makers and private developers in the final decision-
making but planners (particularly consultants and urban designers) will be more actively
involved in design of the programme and the application of methods and techniques. Some
assessment using multi-criteria methods require experts and/or consultants with particular
knowledge of the use and application of the method as well as interpretation of the
outcomes. Citizens, although consulted, need not have such a participative function at this
stage of the process, provided the proposals are in line with the consensus built in the
visioning stage. Nevertheless there are likely to disaffected minorities who have to be

LUDA Compendium
engaged with that part of the programme aimed at minimising the disadvantages to their
quality of life or business interests.
7.4 Implementing LUDA improvement activities
Actions
Improvement action plan
Implementation of key projects
Implementation is clearly the most significant and most active stages when it comes to the
rehabilitation process but the least involved in evaluation terms. This stage involves
implementing a number of projects, such as physical rehabilitation of land and buildings as
well as social and economic measures such as educational or skills development and
business start-up measures. The detailed impact of each project has to be evaluated using
the techniques already mentioned in the last stage, particularly environmental impact
assessment and social impact assessment.
A draft improvement action plan should be drawn up according to the preferred alternative(s).
At this point the proposed mitigation measures will be put into place in order to reconcile or
integrate multiple objectives. Methods such ass project impact assessment can help with this
particular activity. The improvement action plan will ensure that the strategic action is
implemented in the most sustainable manner possible and include priority actions, critical
mass for take-off and monitoring requirements. The environmental / sustainability report and
the draft action plan should be made available to the public and authorities as part of the
overall consultation process. The consultation results should be taken into account when
finalising the action plan / programme.
The designation and prioritisation of key projects will be carried out by stakeholders who will
decide on the organisation of responsibilities to implement the chosen activities / projects;
expert judgement will therefore be crucial at this stage. The feedback of the results of the
implementation, coupled with the ongoing process of strategic environmental assessment will
determine the longer-term success of projects and the overall programme.
7.4.1 Implementing: which stakeholders are likely to be involved?

All the stakeholder groups are likely to be involved in the implementation of the programme
and projects. Policy makers are instrumental throughout the process, private investors,
particularly developers will have a hand in deciding the key projects, and town planners and
development control officers will obviously have a central role to play. Service providers will

LUDA Compendium
be instrumental for successful sustainable land, resource and facilities management at the
time of implementation. Citizens, although consulted, will not have such a participative
function at this stage of the process.
7.5 Monitoring improvement of quality of life in LUDAs
Actions
Evaluation of indicators
Remedial action
Evaluation of good practice and lessons learnt
Monitoring and evaluating urban regeneration is a crucial task. In fact often the availability of
financial support is dependant upon the provision of an acceptable structure for monitoring
and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation should occur throughout the process, both in
terms of assessing changes to the baseline environment and making judgements about what
has been achieved. However, the most significant stage of monitoring and evaluation occurs
after the implementation of programmes and projects when the necessary physical, social
and economic actions have been put into place. It is at this point that evaluators will be able
to determine the extent to which the programme or project achieves the set objectives and
targets, and assess changes in quality of life, whether positive or detrimental (Roberts &
Sykes, 2000). Monitoring can also be used to support the selection of alternative projects or
measures, by assessing their probable impacts on defined goals.
Monitoring system:
A suitable monitoring system which assesses changes to the quality of life of LUDA should
be devised. The monitoring system should be based on a set of indicators which takes into
account the objectives and indicators devised earlier in the LUDA improvement process. The
fields used to categorise the indicators may be based on literature search, the main
objectives of the programme and/or emerging perspectives which attempt to define and
assess quality of life, e.g. LUDA Diamond of Quality of Life [see Handbook 1, section 4]. The
information collected in respect of the indicators can be quantitative or qualitative in nature.
The latter involves obtaining subjective views, for instance, by carrying out surveys of local
people in order to ascertain the level of satisfaction regarding their own quality of life and
their residential area (Porto City Council, 2004). All information collected should be
compared with the data collected at incremental stages throughout the process, most notably
with data relating to the baseline environment (diagnosis). The basic assumption is that any
value of monitoring that takes place after project implementation should not be worse than
the baseline value (SIDA, 2002). In essence, post-implementation monitoring should show

LUDA Compendium
improvements in quality of life of the LUDA. Where there have been negative consequences,
actions should be put into place to mitigate such aspects.
Table 8 [below] shows a possible format for a monitoring programme. This includes possible
actions to reduce impacts if they emerge (Therivel, 2004). It should therefore be treated as a
development of the monitoring system and as a form of mitigation.
Objective What to Who provides How often? At what point What could be
monitor the data? should done if a
additional problem is
action be identified?
considered?
Protect Condition of Planners Every 2 years Condition gets Consider ways
biodiversity at designated worse of improving
ecosystem sites and other biodiversity
and genetic sites of nature protection and
levels conservation enhancement,
importance eg provision of
wildlife
corridors
Protect human Number of Police Annual Any of these Improvements
health and accidents per gets 10% to pedestrian
amenity person- worse and cycling
kilometre facilities, traffic
travelled by calming, new
car, foot, bike road layout to
reduce
accidents
Promote % children Environ- Every 2 years 10% decrease Liaise with
positive walking or mental health cycling officer;
health-related cycling to authority (or establish
behaviour school similar body) walking and
cycling routes
Source: (Therivel, 2004, p. 180)
Monitoring and evaluating LUDA is problematic because the scope of assessment often lies
outside the boundary of LUDA, i.e. in terms of measuring cumulative impacts. Moreover
LUDA is complex in the sense that it may constitute one part of a wider administrative
boundary or LUDA may cut across more than one administrative area. In essence
quantitative and statistical data may not be available at the level of LUDA which poses a
challenge for effective monitoring and evaluation.
7.5.1 Monitoring: which stakeholders are likely to be involved?

Policy makers are likely to be involved at this stage of the process, as are citizens in terms of
obtaining their views on the development(s) (see for instance Ballymun community
indicators). Consultants are often employed at this stage to help with the monitoring studies
and the evaluation process.

LUDA Compendium
8. How will the method be funded?
There is a bewildering array of mechanisms for funding different aspects of urban

regeneration within the European Union and its member states. Each of these mechanisms
is focused on tackling slightly different problems. Understanding these differences is critical
because large levels of external funding are at stake and because regional disparities within
the European Union remain significant. Roughly one-fourth of the European population lives
in regions that have a per capita GDP below 75% of the EU15 average. The Amsterdam
Treaty, in article 2, spelled out the objective of strengthening economic and social cohesion
in the European Union, while article 158 states that:
In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of
development of the various regions as well as the backwardness of the least favoured
regions, including rural areas.
8.1 Public: European, national, regional and local funding sources
8.1.1 Funding from the European Union

EU Structural Funds are the European Union's main instruments for supporting social and
economic restructuring across the Union. They account for over a third of the European
Union budget. The European Social Fund (ESF) is one of four main structural funds set up to
help reduce differences in living standards between the regions of the European Union, by:
reducing unemployment
improving and developing the skills of employed people
investing in industrial or rural areas which are in decline
investing in areas with low economic development
ESF support is available between 2000 and 2006 under the current EU regulations. Each
ESF Objective targets clearly defined policy aims, priorities and measures for support.
Further information is available from the governments of member states, see, for instance:
www.eurofundingnw.org.uk
Projects submitted for ESF funding are scored, appraised and selected through competitive
bidding by government offices in the member states responsible for managing the process.
To be successful a project must at least:
add value (in other words, would not take place or would be less effective without ESF
support)

LUDA Compendium
give good value for money
contribute to meeting the ESF objectives or Community Initiative (and therefore, the
member states National Action Plan for Employment)
meet the more specific targets and requirements of the appropriate Regional
Development Plan, Single Programming Document or Operational Plan
ESF pays for a proportion (usually 45%) of a project's costs. The remaining amount (usually
55%) is known as match funding. Both public and private can be used for match funding but
at least 10% must be provided by a public authority.
A region may have access to one or more of the four structural funds, depending whether it
has Objective 1 or 2 status. Objective 1 aims to develop regions that are currently under-
developed. Objective 2 aims to renew industrial, urban, rural and fisheries areas that are in
decline. For Objective 1 and Objective 2 a Single Programming Document (SPD) has been
developed for each eligible region. Each SPD is a plan that sets out the specific priorities and
key target groups for ESF support in that region. Objective 1 status is the highest form of
Structural Fund aid for the economically and socially 'lagging' regions in the European Union.
Objective 1 funding can be used by regions to develop economic regeneration strategies for
improving their economic performance and for combating their entrenched pockets of social
disadvantage. Objective 2 funding is available to support the economic and social conversion
of areas facing structural difficulties. Areas qualify for Objective 2 under four strands -
industrial, rural, urban and fisheries.
The progress and outcomes of ESF-funded projects have to be evaluated. The UK, for
instance, has an ESF Evaluation Team whose overarching aim is to ensure that all structural
fund programmes in the UK carry out an effective evaluation of the ESF interventions which
both satisfies the information needs of programme managers, partners, the European
Commission and provides information for the UKs National Action Programme. Guidance
documents are provided for ESF projects on monitoring outcomes and distance travelled,
see, for instance, http://www.esf.gov.uk/evaluation/documents.asp. The UKs ESF Evaluation
Team recommends that evaluation should include (Lloyd & OSullivan, 2002).
a set of target indicators.
a scoring system.
a baseline used to assess progress.
a system for reporting results.
training for staff using the system (to ensure quality control and consistency).

LUDA Compendium
8.1.2 National, regional and local funding
Each member state has its own arrangements for funding urban regeneration within its
borders. Each of these funding arrangements has slightly different purposes. For instance, in
the UK, central government funding is available from a variety of funding streams, including:
The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB): This began in 1994 and brought together a
number of programmes from several UK Government departments with the aim of
simplifying and streamlining the assistance available for regeneration. It provides
resources to support regeneration initiatives in England carried out by local
regeneration partnerships. Its priority is to enhance the quality of life of local people in
areas of need by reducing the gap between deprived and other areas, and between
different groups. It supports initiatives that build on best practice and represent good
value for money.
New Deal for Communities: This is a key programme in the UK Government's
strategy to tackle multiple deprivation in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the
country, giving some of its poorest communities the resources to tackle their
problems in an intensive and co-ordinated way. The aim is to bridge the gap between
these neighbourhoods and the rest of England.
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund: This fund aims to enable England's 88 most deprived
authorities, in collaboration with their Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), to improve
services, narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country. A
key element of the strategy is the improvement of mainstream services to produce
better outcomes in the most deprived areas. This means increased employment and
improved economic performance, reduced crime, better educational attainment,
improved health and better housing.
Housing Market Renewal (HMR): The UK Governments 2002 Spending Review
identified the need for long term intervention into areas with housing market failure.
These are areas with large-scale housing abandonment and large areas of empty or
hard-to-let stock. Nine Pathfinder areas were established in 2002.
These UK national funding streams also provide guidance on how monitoring progress and
measure outcomes, see, for example, http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/. The administration,
implementation and auditing of these funds is done by national, regional and local
government agencies.
8.2 The Public Private Partnership Route (PPP)
Public Private Partnership (PPP) is a form of collaboration or joint endeavour between the
public and private sectors for the purposes of implementing a project, whereby the
resources, strengths and capabilities of each are brought together and the risks and
responsibilities are allocated rationally between both sectors. The ability of urban distressed

LUDA Compendium
areas to attract private investment is crucial to the regeneration process. Consequently,
urban practitioners are increasingly looking at means of securing private sector involvement,
this increasing interest in PPPs in urban regeneration reflecting the spread of the PPP
phenomenon on a wider scale.
8.2.1 Public Private Partnership and Sustainable Urban Regeneration

What can the predicted future expansion of the PPP phenomenon into the regeneration
sphere mean for sustainable urban regeneration? The United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (2004) stated that: PPPs can assist in the process of urban
regeneration, by providing resources, improve technologies and services, offer opportunities
to new local business, increase the security and safety of infrastructure especially transport
services, improve environmental standards and linked to other policies in an integrated way,
to improve the situation of the poor and disadvantaged. While PPPs may improve the
physical urban environment, it is also imperative to set social and environmental targets to
ensure that aspects other than physical regeneration are addressed and sustainability
principles are incorporated into PPP projects from the outset. For the effective delivery of
sustainability principles in PPPs, there must be vision and commitment to the concept of
sustainable urban regeneration from all parties involved in the process:
1. Public Sector - The consideration of sustainability criteria in PPPs is generally
inconsistent, and usually depends on how well the authority itself understands the
concept; and whether they are committed to implementing it throughout their work. There
is currently a push on public authorities to become more informed regarding the
sustainability agenda and PPPs, for example, through the introduction of the new EU
SEA Directive.
2. Private Sector - The private sector seems to be leading the way in advancing
sustainability principles in PPP/PFI programmes through the incorporation of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) policies and the voluntary inclusion of sustainability criteria
into their project bids and schemes. There does, however, seem to be a diverse range of
private sector opinions regarding this issue: some companies endorse a strong business
case for sustainability, others perceive it to be too risky.
8.2.2 EU Policy on Public Private Partnership

Although there is no discernable EU PPP policy, there has been an increased emphasis on
PPPs in recent years, with various position papers, initiatives and recommendations
indicating the importance of, and recourse to such an approach for financing the
regeneration process (OGM, 2001). On the occasion of its presidency, Belgium hosted an
informal meeting of Ministers in charge of urban policy to consider new options available for
funding regeneration including:
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)
Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs)
Tax exemption schemes in run-down neighbourhoods

LUDA Compendium
There are a number of recognised challenges facing the EU and its member states if PPPs
are to be incorporated effectively into the regeneration context including:
1. There is an overall lack of understanding regarding the PPP phenomenon in the EU.
At present, the term PPP is not clearly defined at Community level posing major
legislative challenges and having an impact on the uptake of PPPs in the
regeneration process. Further legal clarification is therefore required.
2. For PPPs to be effectively established within the regeneration context, there must first
be the institutional capacity and a sufficient enabling environment for their promotion
and coordination at the national level (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2004).
3. The lack of PPP policies amongst many European cities may also be attributed to the
complex nature of infrastructure project finance requiring substantial resources (both
human and capital), which many local authorities simply do not have. Consequently,
negotiating with their counterparts in the private sector (typically far better resourced)
can prove very challenging (UNECE, 2004).
4. Although the potential exists, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the
development and expansion of PPPs through co-financing with structural funding,
and thus, a lack of integration of EU regional funds and PPPs. This topic is as yet,
under-developed and requires further clarification (EC, 2003). Perhaps what is
holding back the development of such co-financing structures is the sheer complexity
involved in combining the separate requirements of PPPs and EU funding in one
project structure and procurement and within the context of national public sector
procurement requirements (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2004).
While there is an interest in PPPs in all member states, experience of PPP procurement is
limited. The UK stands out as having the longest and most substantial experience of PPPs,
having well-developed PPP programmes. Figure 10 [below] provides a summary of PPP
activity in Europe by country and sector (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2004).

LUDA Compendium
Figure 10: Public Private Partnership Activity in Europe
8.2.3 Conclusion
Public private partnerships are being strongly endorsed by the EU as the answer to financing
problems in urban regeneration projects and as an appropriate mechanism to deliver much
needed services where there is a lack of public funding. Although there are significant
challenges holding back the integration of PPPs in urban regeneration projects, the reality is
that for most European countries, some form of PPP/PFI is likely to emerge as the principle
means of providing public services in the absence of adequate public sector funding (Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 2004). It is at the member state level that prime responsibility lies for
the development of PPP policies, however, it must be recognised that the EU has a crucial
role in assisting and influencing the development and procurement process.

LUDA Compendium
References
Andersen, I-E and Jaeger, B. (2001) Scenario workshops and urban planning in Denmark,
PLA Notes, February, 2001, http://www.iied.org/docs/pla/pla_fs_13.pdf
Bentivegna, V, Curwell, S, Deakin, M, Lombardi, P, Mitchell, G & Nijkamp, P. A vision and
methodology for integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST, Building
Research and Information, 2002, Vol. 30, No. 2.
Building Futures (2005) Urban Futures: Embracing Change, Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment & the Royal Institute of British Architects, London (forthcoming
June 2005).
Carley, M and Kirk, K (1998) Sustainable by 2020? A strategic approach to urban
regeneration for Britains cities, Policy Press, Bristol.
Carter, A. (2000) Strategy and Partnership in Urban Regeneration, In Roberts and Sykes
(2002) Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, SAGE Publications, London.
Couch, C., Fraser, C and Percy, P ed (2003) Introduction, in Urban Regeneration in Europe,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Dator, J. (1993). From Future Workshops to Envisioning Alternative Futures. Futures
Research Quarterly, Winter 1993.
Deakin, M. (2003) Developing sustainable communities: the settlement model, design
solution and matter of environmental assessment, Journal of Environmental
Assessment, Management and Policy, 5, (4).
Deakin, M and Curwell, C. (2003) BEQUEST framework for analysis and directory of
assessment methods, Open House International, 28, (1).
Deakin, M; Curwell, S; Lombardi, P. (2001) BEQUEST: the framework and directory of
assessment methods, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2001, 6, (6).
Deakin, M; Curwell, S. and Lombardi, P (2002) Sustainable urban development: the
framework and directory of assessment methods, Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, 4, (2).
Deakin, M, Huovila, P, Rao, S, Sunikka, M, Vrekeer, R. (2002) The assessment of
sustainable urban development, Building Research and Information, 30, (2).
DEFRA: www.defra.gov.uk/horizonscanning/
DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000) A good practice
Guide to sustainable regeneration, HMSO, London (also available on
www.regeneration.detr.gov.uk)
Devuyst, D., Hens, L. & De Lannoy, W. (2001) How green is the city? Sustainability
Assessment and the Management of Urban Environments, Columbia University Press,
New York.
Drew, P. (1999) European Experiences, in Roberts, P and Sykes, H (ed.), Urban
Regeneration: Handbook, Sage, London.
Ellyard, P. (1999). Quoted in Share the Vision, http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us/share.htm
EC (European Commission) (1991) European Governance: White Paper, (available on:
www.europa.eu.int/comm./governance)
EC (2000) URBAN II Community Initiatives Programme, Directorate-General for Regional
Policy, Brussels

LUDA Compendium
EC, European Community, 2001, Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment, Official Journal, L197, 21 July, page
30
Ensure (2005) Integrated Urban Regeneration: International Experience (available on:
www.ensure.org/u_regen)
European Commission (EC) (2003) Guidelines for Successful Public Private Partnerships,
DG Regional Policy, Brussels.
Elkin, P. & Cooper, I. (1993) Cities and Sustainability, Joint Research Agenda, Economic &
Social Research Council and Engineering & Physical Science Research Council,
Swindon, UK
Environment Agency, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Good Practice Guidelines,
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/512398/830672/
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) [2004] Strategic Environmental Assessment:
background, http://www.eeb.org/activities/SEA/background.htm
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback,S and Theobald, K. (2005) Governing Sustainable Cities,
Earthscan Publications, London.
Fuller, K. 2004, What is Strategic Environmental Assessment, IEMA,
http://www.iema.net/xar/library/RR_SEA_ebreifing/RR_SEA_ebreifing.html
Gannon, J. and Ratcliffe, J. (2005) Futures Workshops: A Handbook, The Futures Academy,
Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.
Gannon, J. and Sirr, L. (2003) Rating the Critical Uncertainties. The Futures Academy,
Dublin Institute of Technology.
Geddes, M (2000) Tackling social exclusion in the European Union, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 24, (4), 782-800.
Hastings, A. (1996) Unravelling the process of partnership in urban regeneration policy,
Urban Studies, 33, 253-268.
Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, Simin, Graham, S. & Madani-Pour, A. (1995) Managing
Cities: The New Urban Context, Chichester: Wiley.
Holm, J., & Wambui Kamara, M. (2001) The participatory and consensus-seeking approach
of Denmark, in Lafferty, W., Sustainable Communities in Europe, Earthscan Publications,
London.
JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) (1998) Combating Social Exclusion: Lessons from Area-
based Programmes in Europe, JRF, York.
JRF (1998) Regenerating Neighbourhoods: Creating Integrated and Sustainable
Improvements, JSF, York.
JRF (2000) Key Steps to Sustainable Area regeneration, JSF, York
Jungk, R. & Mallert, N. (1987). Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures. Institute
for Social Inventions. London.
Legal500.com, Strategic environmental assessment,
www.legal500.com/devs/uk/ev/ukev_077.htm
Lindgren, M. & Bandhold, H. (2003). Scenario Planning: The Link between Future and
Strategy. Palgrave MacMillan, UK.
Mee Kam, N., Cook, A and Chui, W. (2001) The road not travelled; a sustainable urban
regeneration strategy for Hong Kong, Planning Practice and Research, 16, (2), 171-183.

LUDA Compendium
Morris, P and Therivel, R. (ed.) (2001) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon
Press, London.
Muller, B., Curwell, S., and Turner, J., (2005) Towards an Improvement Process Model for
Large Urban Distressed Areas in European Cities: Development of Collaborative
Strategic Goal Oriented Programming (CoSGOP), In: Urbanistica Domila dossier.
ODPM (2003) Participatory planning for sustainable communities: international experience in
mediation, negotiation and engagement in making plans, Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, London
ODPM (2004) A Draft Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Directive,
http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk
ODPM (2005) The SEA Directive in Brief, http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk
Office of Government Ministers (2001) 'Public Private Partnerships and Urban Regeneration',
Preparatory Report of Recommendations for submission to the informal Council of
Ministers in charge of urban policy.
Porto City Council (2004) Monitoring system on urban quality of life, Porto City Council
Studies and Planning Unit, http://www.cm-
porto.pt/document/449218/project_presentation.pdf
Price Waterhouse Coopers (2004) Developing PPPs in New Europe, Price Waterhouse
Coopers, Dublin.
Ratcliffe, J. (2000). The Wind-Tunnel. RICS Cutting Edge Conference.
Ratcliffe, J. (2000). Scenario Planning: An Evaluation of Practice. Futures Research
Quarterly, Winter, 2003, Vol. 19 (4).
Ratcliffe, J. (2002a) Scenario planning: an evaluation of practice, Futures Research
Quarterly, Winter, 2003, Vol. 19 (4).
Ratcliffe, J. (2002b) Scenario planning: strategic interviews and conversations, Foresight,
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2002, pp. 19-30.
Ratcliffe, J. and Sirr, L. (2003). The Prospective Process through Scenarios. The Futures
Academy, Dublin Institute of Technology.
Richard Lloyd, R. and OSullivan, F. GHK (2002) Measuring Soft Outcomes and Distance
Travelled: Research Report, GHK study carried out on behalf of the Department for Work
and Pensions, London.
Ringland, G. (2002). Scenarios in Public Policy. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester.
Roberts, P and Sykes, H (2000) Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, SAGE Publications Ltd,
London
Rogers, B & Robinson, E. (2004) The benefits of community engagement: a review of the
evidence. A report for the Civil Renewal Unit of the Home Office, Active Citizenship
Centre, London, http://www.active-
citizen.org.uk/files/downloads/Reports/Benefits%20of%20Community%20Engagement.p
df
Schwartz, P. (1998). The Art of the Long View. 4th ed., John Wiley, Chichester.
Shipley, R. and Newkirk, R. (1998) Visioning: Did Anybody See Where It Came From?
Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 407-416.
SIDA (2002) Indicators for Environmental Monitoring in International Development
Cooperation, DNRE, http://www.sida.se/Sida/articles/15300-
15399/15353/IndicatorsEnvironmental%5B1%5D.pdf

LUDA Compendium
Therivel, R. (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, Earthscan, London
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on
the earth, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC,
Watson, M., 2003, Environmental Impact Assessment and European Community Law, XIV
International Conference Danube River of Cooperation, Beograd, Nov 13-15, 2003,
http://members.tripod.com/~danubedita/library/2003watson2.htm
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2004) Governance in Public
Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development, Geneva, United Nations (draft).
Available at: www.unece.org/ie/ppp
Vilaplana, B (1998) Partnerships and networks as new mechanisms towards sustainable
urban regeneration, Working Paper No. 91, Development Planning Unit, University
College London, London.

The LUDA project is coordinated by:
IOER
Weberplatz 1,
01217 Dresden,
Germany
Tel. + 49 351 4679 0
Fax. + 49 351 4679 212
luda-team@ioer.de
For further information about the LUDA project, contact the coordination team at
IOER, or visit the project web-site: www.luda-project.net
LUDA is a research project of Key Action 4 City of Tomorrow & Cultural Heritage
from the programme Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development within
the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Union. Contract Nr. EVK4 CT
2002 - 00081

Handbook 3

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Handbook 3

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Improving the quality of life in Large Urban Distressed Areas

Sustainable urban regeneration and its

May 2005, version 1.0

Using this handbook

Back to Table of Contents 2

Back to Table of Contents 3

This handbook provides an introduction to sustainable urban regeneration and its

2. Sustainable urban regeneration

Back to Table of Contents 4

This remains the benchmark definition of sustainable development. Numerous other

Figure 1: The PICABE model of sustainable development principles

Concern that Concern for

Source: (ERC 1996 and BEQUEST 1998)

Back to Table of Contents 5

Figure 2: Ecological footprinting

Source: Wackernagel and Rees (1996)

2.2 What is urban regeneration?

Back to Table of Contents 6

2.3 The persistence of urban distress

2.4 The new agenda for urban regeneration

Back to Table of Contents 7

2.5 What is sustainable urban regeneration?

Back to Table of Contents 8

Depleted resources or Economic or technical

(adapted from Elkin & Cooper, 1993)

3. Sustainable urban regeneration assessment

Sustainable urban regeneration assessment (SURA) is made up of a family of methods that

Back to Table of Contents 9

3.1 Assessment methods and techniques

Back to Table of Contents 10

3.1.1 Additional techniques

Figure 4: Nested hierarchy of terms

Back to Table of Contents 11

5. Why carry out assessment?

5.1 The importance of sustainable assessment

Environmental impacts therefore need to be understood by all stakeholders in the

5.1.2 The role of assessment in integrated sustainable community based regeneration

Back to Table of Contents 12

This is based upon the following assumptions:

In order to achieve these bottom-up community planning objectives assessments are

Back to Table of Contents 13

5.2 Collaborative, Strategic, Goal Orientated Planning (CoSGOP) the LUDA

Back to Table of Contents 14

Back to Table of Contents 15

Table 1: Indicators and thematic groups

Indicator Thematic group

5.3 Assessment Methodology for CoSGOP LUDA Improvement Process

Collaborative Strategic Goal Orientated Programming (CoSGOP) forms the strategic

Figure 6: Integration of the evaluation methodology into CoSGOP

Strategic decision making Assessment Methodology

6. What methods and techniques are appropriate for evaluating the

6.1 Legal requirements in Europe

6.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Back to Table of Contents 17

The Directive 97/11/EC can be viewed at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-

6.1.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Back to Table of Contents 18

The SEA Directive 2001/42/EC can be viewed at:

6.2 Policies, plans programmes and projects

As illustrated in Figure 7, the level of environmental assessment application has been

Back to Table of Contents 19

SEA Regs. Programmes

Adapted from: Environment Agency

6.3 Economic, social and environmental problems