A METHODOLOGY FOR THE SUSTAINABLE EVALUATION OF LARGE URBAN DISTRESSED AREAS (LUDA)

Transcription

1 A METHODOLOGY FOR THE SUSTAINABLE EVALUATION OF LARGE URBAN DISTRESSED AREAS (LUDA) S.Curwell 1, J.Turner 1, B.Müller 2 1 Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, Salford, M7 1NU 2 Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Weberplatz 1 / Dresden - Germany j.c.turner@salford.ac.uk ABSTRACT: Most European cities have large urban areas suffering environmental, economical and social distress that results in a high level of political pressure to make rapid improvements to the quality of life. The three main challenges of these areas are their unique dimension, the complexity of problems and the uncertainty of their future development. The first phase of the paper will give a short introduction to the LUDA project including the practical and strategic approach to improving the quality of life of large urban distressed areas. This will lead into the work being undertaken to develop a methodology for the sustainable evaluation of LUDA reliant on the integration of assessment methods and techniques applied within its process structure. The guidance derived from procedural methods, such as Strategic Environmental Assessment, will provide the rules required to aid decision makers responsible for the managing the (re)development processes in LUDA. Keywords evaluation, methods, process, sustainability, urban regeneration 1. INTRODUCTION A large urban distressed area (LUDA) can be classified as a considerable part of a city, larger than a neighbourhood or ordinary rehabilitation area (Westphal, et al 2003, p. 10). In many cases LUDA spread over a number of districts requiring concerted and collaborative action between local authorities. These facts represent a strategic challenge for elected representatives and other stakeholders responsible for delivering rapid improvements to quality of life. Large urban distressed areas evolve over a long period of time due to changes in economic and demographic structures or due to previous failures of public intervention, private investment and community involvement (Westphal, et al). As a result, these areas suffer from multiple deprivations such as housing degradation, inadequate or improper facilities, rundown, derelict industrial sites and redundant buildings, environmental risks and problems, unattractive and disconnected urban structures, unemployment and weaknesses in social cohesion that threaten the sustainable development of the city as a whole. The mix of problems tend to discourage investment and job creation, producing cycles of economic decline, social exclusion and environmental deterioration. Interventions in these areas therefore have to take into consideration the inter-connectivity of problems during the whole process of rehabilitation. Improvement in the quality of life of such areas needs to be based on the concept of sustainable urban development which aims to safeguard development options for future generations by integrating environmental, economic and social factors into decision making. However, such improvements are dependant on city planners and officials developing visions and clearly formulated strategies for improving the quality of life in large urban distressed areas. Where this is lacking, the impetus for developers getting involved in major investments is restricted. The unfavourable image of a LUDA is itself a major problem and may be consolidated by the proliferation of disused land and the encouragement of adverse speculative projects. These restrictions and unfavourable images often act as an impediment 344

2 inward investment from both public and private sources and so to sustainable urban development. As a result a growing number of municipalities have started to take the strategic action needed to improve the quality of life. This paper reports on work undertaken in the period to develop a methodology for the sustainable evaluation of LUDA undertaken in the LUDA Project (EVK4-CT ) of the EU s FP5 City of Tomorrow Programme. The LUDA project, co-ordinated by IOER in Dresden, brings together six partner cities and ten research institutions from eight different European countries in an interdisciplinary way. A network of 12 reference cities from a wider scope of European countries has also been established in order to put forward and exchange good practice experiences in relation to their rehabilitation processes. Throughout the project duration, the six partner cities in cooperation with the research partners will formulate a work-plan to develop a strategy for their rehabilitation, which will result in the implementation of key projects and subsequent improvement to quality of life. 2. COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC GOAL-ORIENTATED PROGRAMMING (CoSGOP) The LUDA project has developed and adopted a theoretical model called Collaborative Strategic Goal Oriented Programming (CoSGOP) as a starting point for the planning and redeveloping of large urban distressed areas in Europe. CoSGOP has been derived from ZOPP [GTZ 1988] the goal orientated planning approach which has become a major planning and programming tool in the international co-operation of Germany. While goal orientated planning is an effective tool for reinforcing the role of communication and the active involvement of stakeholders, the approach has been criticized for being too rigid with not enough attention paid to the expectations of the participants and their daily environments. Moreover, it has become more apparent that stronger emphasis should be placed on strategic issues as a means to shape programmes and projects over time. Considering this background, CoSGOP is a programming approach which is orientated towards the following characteristics: Communication with the active involvement of the different stakeholders or stakeholder groups having an impact or influencing the development of an areas, strategic planning based on the identification of strengths and weaknesses, problems and potentials, opportunities and threats, as well as on scenario building and visioning, the definition of goals as the basis for action regarding the improvement process, and long-term flexible programming of interventions by the different stakeholders. All in all, CoSGOP is a collaborative and communicative way of strategic programming, decision-making, implementation and monitoring oriented towards clearly defined and specified goals. Most importantly it shall be oriented towards the management of (re)development processes in cities. 2.1 CoSGOP Process CoSGOP provides a process structure for effective communication and joint decision-taking among stakeholders involved in rehabilitation programmes. In this sense CoSGOP should be regarded as more than a mere planning method as it facilitates collaborative working and strategic thinking, which is often lacking in conventional planning approaches. 345

3 Stakeholder Analysis Problems / Potentials Goals / Alternatives Improvement Programme Impact Assessment Projects / Implementation Monitoring / Adjustment Fig.1. Elements of Collaborative Strategic Goal Oriented Programming (CoSGOP) The major elements of CoSGOP include (cf. figure 1): Stakeholder analysis which provides an appraisal of the main actors involved in the rehabilitation process. This includes their individual or collective interests and goals, as well as their perceptions and expectations of the area in question. Analysis of problems and potentials, i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats regarding the development of an area. It is vital that bottlenecks and potential success factors are perceived by a variety of stakeholders in the area. Analysis of goals and alternatives of development: Once the problems and potentials have been identified, the goals and objectives of the programme can be formulated. This is followed by the generation of alternatives and scenarios for the future development of the area supported by the application of futures techniques. Both actions are dependant on the intensive communication and participation of concerned stakeholders. Specification of an improvement programme and main activities. This is based on the realisation of priority activities, crucial for the successful development of an area. These should be defined by the stakeholders and include the mechanisms of urban design within its remit. The programme needs to provide a Assessment of possible impacts of an improvement programme and associated key projects. The possible affects of the improvement activities of the programme and of 346

4 projects which are planned to be carried out should be scrutinised in relation to the defined goals and objectives. Definition and specification of key projects and their implementation: A flexible and creative approach to implementing fundable key projects is required for the rehabilitation programme to be successful Continuous monitoring of improvement activities, feed-back and adjustment of the programme according to evolving requirements. Monitoring and Feed-back are a key component of learning processes. Therefore they play a decisive role in rehabilitation programmes. 3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR LUDA The evaluation methodology for LUDA (cf. fig. 3) has been developed in order to identify which methods / techniques can be used for evaluation and assessment and to the key stakeholders responsible for decision making at each stage of the process. This model is based largely on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal as two procedures responsible for assessing policies, plans and programmes in Europe (EC Directive 2001/42/EC) and in the UK (DETR 2000). Rehabilitation framework for LUDA (CoSGOP) Integrated Evaluation Methodology for LUDA 1. Stakeholder Analysis Diagnosis (Scoping) 2. Problems / Potentials Diagnosis (Benchmarking) 3. Goals / Alternatives Visioning 4. Improvement Programme Programming 5. Impact Assessment 6. Projects / Implementation Implementing 7. Monitoring / Adjustment Monitoring and evaluation Fig. 2. Integration of the evaluation methodology into CoSGOP CoSGOP, whilst being effective as the framework for communication and joint decisionmaking in LUDA, it is not sufficiently aligned to assessment to warrant it being used as the structure of the methodology in terms of the main elements (cf. figure 1). This is demonstrated by the restrictive nature of the first two elements, i.e. Stakeholder Analysis and Problems and Potentials, the former of which could be classed as a method in its own right. There is also the problem that Improvement Programme does need not involve any assessment and so does not contain any specific methods at all. Moreover, Impact Assessment although evaluation based, does not sufficiently delve into the detail associated with this stage of the process as captured in the SEA procedure, i.e. predicting impacts, evaluating impacts, comparing alternatives and mitigating impacts. Therefore the improved process proposed as the main evaluation steps, i.e. scoping, benchmarking (diagnosis); visioning; programming; implementing; monitoring developed as part of earlier LUDA research, would provide a more appropriate framework for the evaluation methodology than CoSGOP. As Figure 3 illustrates, although CoSGOP underlies the evaluation methodology, the main steps and associated actions are more closely aligned to evaluation and assessment. In this respect, the methodology forms the sustainable evaluation framework for CoSGOP and as such the two approaches should be treated as distinct models. At the same time, as 347

5 illustrated in Figure 2, the evaluation methodology should run in parallel or be integrated into the rehabilitation process; the latter being the more ideal scenario. The diagram also demonstrates how well the evaluation methodology maps against the CoSGOP approach and therefore the ease at which integration can be achieved. Although the methodology puts forward a linear structure for evaluation the reality in cities may mean that the model must be entered at different stages of the process. Therefore a flexible adoption strategy is anticipated which doesn t require the employment of every single action. In this respect the process explicit in the evaluation methodology is open and flexible and acts as guidance for practitioners rather than a rigid approach As it is illustrated in Figure 3, it is important to consider the stakeholders and methods / techniques that are most likely to be employed at each stage of the process. Many techniques are generic in nature and can be used at all stages of the process, for instance SWOT analysis and expert judgement. Moreover monetary-based methods, such as cost-benefit analysis can also be used at all stages in support of other methods. Some methods are most appropriate, but not restricted to particular points in the process, for instance: futures methods in the generation of visions and scenarios, impact assessment methods for the predicting the effects of alternative options, and multi-criteria methods for the comparison of alternatives. The range of methods that can be used range from well established, such as those already mentioned, to those recently developed or in the research phase (e.g. Quality of Life Assessment). In terms of stakeholders, it is most likely that policy makers, particularly local authorities, will be involved in a decision-making capacity throughout the process. However, the procedure will be supported by planners, designers and consultants who have a particular expertise, essential at particular points in the process. For instance, consultants with specialist skills may be employed to carry out certain methods, e.g. project EIA (Therivel 2004). It is also important that citizens views are taken into consideration at all levels of decisionmaking, from conception to implementation. 348

6 Diagnosis (Scoping) Identify driving forces of change Identify key issues Stakeholder analysis Resource and limitation assessment Diagnosis (Benchmarking) Identification of SD indicators and targets Information collection Identification of problems & potentials Visioning Feedback Formulation of strategic objectives, targets and indicators Generation of alternatives (& scenarios) Programming Design of selected alternative scenarios Predicting impacts Evaluating impacts and comparing alternatives Impact mitigation Implementing Improvement action plan Implementation of key projects Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation of indicators Remedial action Evaluation of good practice and lessons learnt Fig. 3. The Evaluation Methodology for LUDA 349

7 4. PROTOCOL OF INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PRACTICE The developed evaluation methodology is being used as the basis of the protocol of integrated assessment and evaluation practice for decision-makers responsible for the managing the (re)development processes in LUDA. The steps and associated actions tie into the rules followed in analysis derived from guidance relating to the procedural methods of SEA, Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Prospective Process through Scenarios (PPtS). SEA is particularly important, as the European Directive 2001/42/EC [EC 2001] which came into effect in July 2004, clearly states that the assessment of effects on the environment associated with certain plans and programmes must be implemented by all EU member states. Whilst Sustainability Appraisal is only considered at the UK national level and Prospective Process through Scenarios (PPtS) does not contain any mandatory requirements in its remit, they nevertheless contribute towards a more holistic approach to the assessment of plans, policies and programmes. The Sustainability appraisal of policies and development plans detailed in the UK s DETR guide [DETR 2000], puts forward an objectives-led approach based on the three pillars of sustainable development, and consequently represents a more integrated approach to supporting the decision-making process. PPtS, on the other hand, offers a participatory methodology that supports the generation of alternatives and scenarios associated with the futures approach. All these procedures rely on the application of different methods and techniques at each stage and sub-stage of the process, a supporting factor that is vital to the evaluation methodology and the protocol. Table 1 represents an exemplar of the scoping stage of the protocol, which relates to diagnosis. Rules derived from the three procedures are detailed alongside the main actions. Some rules not relating to the procedures but from collective input from the LUDA team have also been added where there was seen to be gaps; these are shown in italics. As with the evaluation methodology, the process and associated rules merely act as guidance for practitioners rather than a strict set of steps to follow. The benefits of combining SEA and Sustainability Appraisal has been put forward by many experts, particularly in terms of considering all facets of sustainable development (Smith and Sheate 2001). The protocol developed in LUDA goes some way towards achieving this goal, with PPtS providing another branch to the combined methodology. Once the protocol is disseminated outside the LUDA project, this could have local policy implications for regeneration professionals involved in strategic decision-making who would otherwise not think to use such methods. Surveys of the cities involved in the LUDA project (partner cities and reference cities) as to the application and awareness of methods, showed a distinct lack of experience of SEA. Whilst 38% of the cities have used SEA, a striking 46% of the respondents are not even aware of the procedure. This represents a significant gap in knowledge and experience associated with the SEA requirements and assessment in more general terms. Future national and European policies will need to address this skills gap and enforce the need for greater training and mid-career learning targeted at the assessment of projects, plans and programmes. This would also reduce the ambiguity surrounding the selection of programmes requiring SEA as well as the content of obligatory environmental and consultation reports. Member States of Europe are in a transitional period as far as the assessment of plans and programmes is concerned. The protocol would help enhance the awareness of SEA in cities and enforce the need to integrate the requirements of SEA into national procedures across Europe. 350

8 Actions Identify driving forces for change Identify core issues Stakeholder analysis Resource and limitation assessment Table 1: Exemplar of Protocol (Scoping) Rules / Guidance Identify and review other relevant policies, plans and programmes (SA) e.g. S.D objectives, national, regional, city and various stakeholder groups Undertake a comprehensive scanning exercise to identify the main issues and trends driving change at the national, regional and local level, for example by using the six-sector approach (social, demographic, economic, environmental, governance and technological) [PPtS] Identify key sustainability issues that will influence decision-making (SA/SEA) Designate authorities to be consulted which, by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes (SEA) Identify key stakeholders and roles, interests and responsibilities The authorities shall be consulted when deciding on the scope and level of detail of information which must be included in the environmental report (SEA) Produce a scoping report, which includes the programme needs and limitations in terms of capital, manpower, time-span, spatial scale, etc and use it to consult stakeholders over the scope of the programme and appraisal(s) [SA] 5. CONCLUSION The new SEA requirements have placed important responsibilities on LAs and thus the almost absence of application of assessment techniques revealed in the LUDA project represents a serious shortfall in current practice. The paper has identified a new process methodology for addressing the multiple deprivations in LUDA areas, based on experience in a number of European cities. The protocol will enable professional actors to identify appropriate assessment and evaluation techniques to deploy at different stages in the process and help address the limitation in current practice. Together they provide a structure into which a wide range of good practice in evaluation is to be captured in the final stge of the project. The LUDA regeneration methodology implies a complex iterative process, which is worthy of more detailed exploration based on experience of its application in Cities. Professional planners and urban designer are familiar with the national planning requirements and the methodology sits outside this formal process. The hard gates that the formal planning and development control procedures impose have to be mapped onto the process. This raises additional problems due to the wide range of requirements in the different national and regional jurisdictions in the enlarged EU. Therefore in the interim as the methodology must be applied alongside these formal procedures and thus, like CosGOP, lacks legitimacy. In the short term this has to be addressed by engaging all political actors so that the use of the LUDA methodology has force in the regeneration process. 6. REFERENCES DETR, (2000) Good Practice Guide on Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance, The Stationary Office Ltd, London. 351

9 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. Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit [GTZ], (1988) ZOPP: An Introduction to the Method, Eschborn: Germany. Smith, S., and Sheate, W., (2001) Sustainability appraisal of English regional plans: incorporating the requirements of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp Therivel, R., (2004), Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, Earthscan, London. Westphal, C., Otto, A., von Löwis, S., Smaniotto Costa, C., and Bielawska-Roepke, P., (2003), Report about the scope and distribution of large urban distressed areas in European cities, 352