Miss Jones EQ4 Flashcards
What measures can be used to measure economic dperivation
-income deprivation-proportion ppl experiencing deprivation linked low income
-employment deprivation %working age want work but can’t
+census data=v accurate, every1, clear quantifiable data regular records
-regeneration increase opportunities others may take new jobs if only certain groups benefited may be relative, census only every 10yrs, time of regeneration project varies, poverty needs educational attainment long term
What measures can be used to measure social deprivation
-Index of multiple deprivation-relative deprivation
-barriers to housing+services, education, crime, health+disability
+collected by govt departments (ONS) easily comparable data+ areas look at before+after more qualitative soc media, newspapers etc
-newspapers could be biased from pol view, one factor severely affects/might be more deprived than shown
What measures can be used to measure environmental deprivation
-Living Environment deprivation-
Indoor: quality of housing, including structure, facilities, insulation+ central heating provision
Outdoor: air quality+ no road traffic accidents
Also reduction pollution/abandoned or derelict land
+measures lots factors, easily comparable, surveys realistic+ accurate sometimes but quantifiable, pollution indicators=accurate
-photos snapshot+ photographer bias, pollution indicators measured different times day rush hr or middle of day, based accuracy person
Pattern of deprivation W/Barking+Dagenham
- most deprivation centre e.g. Albion, Valence+Heath unlike further away+ by Thames historically imports+ docks built up area
- Dagenham main employment skilled traders e.g.electricians W/mean weekly wage £486.50 compared whole UK+Ldn main=professionals as teachers/doctors £700.80
- overall poverty IMD Barking+ Dagenham=2.6, KT=7.7, income+ employment Dag+Barking decile 2.5+3.2 KT=7.2+8.2
How did these measures show success regeneration (soc)
- generally successful improving soc factors Barking Town Centre 1960s need refurbishment for retail, commerce+new residential spaces by 2014 over 400homes+ 1000m^2 commercial space created, health disability 4-5 2010-13 Crime 2-1 living environ deprivation 2-3
- some soc factors stayed same e.g, barriers housing regeneration Barking Town City 1-1+ even decreases crime Beam Park prev Ford factory 40,000m^2 workplaces (premier inn)+pub (breweries fayre) 2-1 only anomaly
Environ quality
- lower lvls pollution Dag+ Barking 31, KT=37, central=43
- currently seeking improvements public transport W/new rail link Barking riverside improve area+housing
- trying improve footpaths signage+ directions- encourage ppl walk +extend ‘just walk’ scheme W/‘walk to school’for Young less using cars +less pollution
- public transport less use vehicles by themselves+ instead share- reduced pollution
Abandoned+ derelict area
- generally derelict land improved e.g. new premier inn built on demolished unused land, flat entrances renovated make more attractive, extending building W/new modern front using unusual wasted space+ new flats+ apartments
- altho many historic building generally in regenerated areas less derelict+ abandoned land
Issues measuring regeneration
-most not intended quick fix assessing not attempted time bed down+ reveal strengths+ weaknesses such time lapse= yrs rather than months
Perception of success differs
- who behind it, money, short term/sustainable
- motives behind? Pol have meet targets
- depends age, ethnicity, attachment etc disagree remains whether resulted pos/neg all local stakeholders even if modern tend include broader range public ops
Private investment
- come from co directors, stakeholders, employees can be when project benefit more 1co/ partner e.g, tech-car co sharing research new engine tech, supply chains-inter chips made variety computers
- or new inv single co- expand product range+ increase profits e.g. Apple, Microsoft
- Stratford’s Westfield’s Australian co Westfield own 50% development+ rent out other spaces retail co’s (where make profit needed)
Public inv
- come form MP’s, govt officials, regional or local councils used any infrastructure/public-service project private views too costly/ risks where exp income lower than costs
- e.g. 2012 Olympics supported Ldn Assembly+ Mayor £9.3bn host- recovered thru ticketing etc (sport-led) also used infrastructure HS2
Public-private partnership
-cost high but can still be shared W/private (both have to understand each other)
-e.g. Ldn Docklands (market-led) govt gave land+financial grants, property developers created buildings, jobs+housing generally used housing where govt take some for affordable housing
(Strategies aim best value money e.g. private inv for govt= beneficial as free +improve areas)
Olympic Park impact both nat+local strategies positively+negatively:
- dire need regeneration abandoned old industrial sites+ wastelands, higher than avg unemployment rest ldn+ low achievement skls (GCSE’s)
- many positives long-term as econ supporting new jobs+skills, encouraging trade, inward inv+ tourism
- sports continuing elite success, development more sports facilities+ encouraging participation skl sports+wider
- soc+ volunteering- inspiring others volunteer+ encouraging soc change
- regeneration-reuse venues, new homes+ improved transportation
- office developments district branded ‘International Quarter’ 400,000 m^2 offices, 4*hotel+ 330homes
- residential areas e.g. Chobham manor+ Sweetwater provide 9,000 new homes 2025
- not as much soc housing as promised+ ppl pushed out(local) only locals benefit high speed internet
- lots infrastructure+ housing(local), tourism Westfield’s+ jobs (national)+ sports stadiums
Stakeholders involved Olympic Park regeneration- UK central govt agency
Oversee legacy development success criteria- use venues post 2012, increase employment+ more housing
Stakeholders involved Olympic Park regeneration-Local govts elected councils
4boroughs all wanted regeneration continue post 2012 but no planning control over new developments
Stakeholders involved Olympic Park regeneration-Reg govt Ldn assembly
Responsible ensuring transportation effective during games+ supporting expansion housing+ E Ldn econ after 2012
Stakeholders involved Olympic Park regeneration- local economy stakeholders
Former industrial estate 207 co’s employing 5,000 compensated still objections as many workers faced longer commute even if most relocated local
Stakeholders involved Olympic Park regeneration-stakeholders in ppl
Over housing increases prices desirable area-extremely expensive, affordable housing re model athletes village 3,000units now 800+ those earning £60,000 yr qualify+village on site low-income residents 450relocated soc housing throughout Ldn breaking up community, promise re-housing them after 2012 never honoured
Stakeholders involved Olympic Park regeneration- environmental stakeholders
Cleaned up+re-landscaped whole area park from dereliction new wetlands now form part park+ breeding boxes+nesting site -increase no. species e.g. newts, fish, bats+birds
Dereliction caused closure Ldn docks
Local stakeholders agreements
- unemployment reduced overall across Ldn during Olympic period- reg govts+ UK central govt agency
- Olympic site largely built 560acres brownfield land neglected, unused+ contaminated- new greenery+landscape- local govt+environ stakeholders
- local govts wanted regeneration continue 8,000 5new neighbourhoods from Olympic Parklands means agree W/reg+ UK central govts agency
Local stakeholders disagreements
- increase house prices pushing out ppl as desirable from over housing boom+lack affordable housing initial promises 2,800 new homes ‘affordable’ rents not available Newham’s poorest households- stakeholders in ppl+UK central govt agency
- total bill olympics £8.77bn tax payers money £5bn over budget+ existing businesses had more e.g. H.Forman and Sons salmon smoking factory 50employees, rents gone up, still high lvls unemployed borough missed opportunity train local up work- local econ stakeholders+ reg govt
Rural stakeholders differ to urban
- players may include landowners, farmers or DEFRA (Department for Environ Food+ Rural Affairs)
- success may mean shared/different aspects:improvements leisure, retail, jobs, visitors housing or biodiversity
- areas high conflict include urban-rural fringe, green belts=National parks
- traditionally local ppl identify+act on own needs govt policies (thru DEFRA) support this enabling them run community buildings+ facilities e.g. pubs, allotments, village shop
Cornwall CS
- 2000-10 econ growing faster UK avg as result sustained inv until 2005 5.8%- UK avg 5.4% fastest rate any EU region
- most this inv came public sector since 2010 govt put austerity measures-less can be inv, private sector now relied upon for continued inv
- rural disadvantage-lower pop density, less attraction investors as struggle maintain sufficient customers make profit- Young, well qualified residents forced leave+ find work elsewhere 20%working age earns less living wage £7.45/hr 2015
- converging funding: objective 1-match funding reduce risks faced new businesses 1/3fail 1st yr thru matching capital raised individual business ppl to pump-prime new businesses+ reduce initial costs-increase proportion survive+ thrive long-term 1999-07 used grants local+Nat govts+ EU aim reduce disparities income+ opportunity urban+rural
Stakeholders involved Cornwall regeneration The EU
-converge funding granted Cornwall since 1999, objective 1-2007 580projects backed W/230m from local+Nat(central) govts as well
