Multistakeholder sustainability assessment of housing estate regeneration schemes: Analysis of a mixed methods survey

Abstract

Engaging with different stakeholders in decision making over the regeneration of housing estates is a legislative requirement in many countries. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodology and in general, Sustainability Assessment Frameworks (SAFs) are suitable tools to allow for a holistic comparison of different regeneration scenarios and their impacts. Understanding the priorities and meeting the expectations of different stakeholder groups and recognising the disablers and values of a participatory SAF are the main challenges in conducting a multistakeholder holistic sustainability assessment. Towards identifying a suitable stakeholder-driven SAF for decision-making on housing estate regeneration schemes (HERS), this paper has four aims to: 1) explore the perception of different stakeholders on their priorities concerning estate regeneration; 2) identify the barriers to participation; 3) identify the values of a holistic SAF; and 4) evaluate the effectiveness of the available SAFs. These aims have been explored through an extensive review of literature followed by a mixed-methods survey design, employing deductive and inductive approaches with stakeholders of HERS in the UK. The criteria for each section of the survey have been identified through review of literature. The inductive approach involves identifying the perceived importance of the pre-identified criteria through quantitative scoring, and the deductive approach involves qualitative analysis of open-ended questions to identify emerging new codes and themes. Thematic Analysis (TA), coding, Content Analysis (CA), and descriptive statistics were used for analysing the results. Triangulation and consolidation of the analyses reveal the importance of goal and scope definition and relevance of sustainability indicators for a participatory SAF due to the varying priorities of different stakeholder groups. Lack of meaningful engagement, transparent communication, a clear framework, and client interest are identified as the main barriers to a participatory SAF, while inclusivity, transparency, and knowledge advocacy are noted among the highest values. The findings highlighted the importance of ethical considerations and institutional barriers for stakeholder-driven decision-making for HERS, and potential of integrating participatory approaches into assessment frameworks. The participants' low perception of the current SAFs reiterates the necessity of this novel research. We recommend future research to explore these findings outside of the study sample, and further study how the identified implementation gaps can be addressed.