Introduction
Regeneration in rural areas and regions is a complex, multi-dimensional process creating a range of impacts on community wellbeing. It takes time and effort to mobilise localised, sustainable, community-based developments, drawing on and extending the capacity of local communities and government (Stocker and Pollard, 1994; Powe et al., 2015). Social impact assessment can play an important part, especially when approached from a community base.
In Aotearoa New Zealand rural areas and regions face considerable obstacles to develop and thrive. An extended period of neo-liberal restructuring since the 1980s saw a re-focus of regional development with greater emphasis on the roles of local government, non-government organisations and rural communities (Nel, 2015). These local actions often face competing trajectories of development (Argent, 2011) especially around environmental and heritage impacts and their management.
Typically, successful community-based regeneration is based on a vision and plan inclusive of a broad representation of residents; as McMahon (2017, page 21) points out: “failing to plan simply means planning to fail”. While there are plenty of failures in regeneration practice, often expending considerable time and external resources, the greatest successes are gained by initiatives shaped around existing assets and local capacity. However, community leaders and organisations often struggle to assess fully the problems they face and to plan responses. They need to know what constitutes successful regeneration: what works well and why.
By implication, local governments are key players in community-based change. Central government agencies and external stakeholder groups can also play an important part, but necessarily must consider shifting towards a bottom-up approach to support local initiatives and their leadership. The role of external agencies therefore becomes facilitative and focuses on being flexible and effective in delivering local services (Powe, et al., 2015).
A key finding from our research is the need to support community organisations and leadership throughout the project cycle, to co-produce knowledge about social impacts and wellbeing outcomes of actions taken, and to identify new opportunities for regeneration and social development. This approach requires SIA research on longer-term changes and emerging issues, with better-informed policy, regulation and plan making as a result. Refer to the Guidelines on Social Impact Assessment for Thriving Regions and Communities (Taylor and Mackay, 2022) to support communities with a practical approach to assessing and communicating the nature of social impacts of regeneration initiatives.
Lessons from the South Island
Our research into regeneration practices was focused on the Waitaki District in the South Island and is an output from the Thriving Regions (South Island) research theme of the Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge (BBHTC) as reported by Mackay et al. (2018). The Waitaki research was part of a set of case studies focused on North Otago, Timaru and Ashburton to understand how settlements and communities might create positive futures for themselves (Perkins et al., 2019). By focusing on the Waitaki Valley, one of the largest catchments in the country, we gained insights into transformational changes in natural resource uses that directly affect the built environment and social wellbeing of regional towns (Ōamaru), smaller settlements and rural communities.
In the Waitaki we found a diverse geography where resource cycles are driving social and economic transitions. More specifically, we found there is a mix of regeneration activities at different stages in their life cycle, some being planned, others built, others operational, or under periodic maintenance, renewal, restructuring or closure. The resulting mosaic of economic and employment activity impacts social wellbeing outcomes that SIA research can then focus on (Mackay and Taylor, 2024). Our analysis set the scene for understanding place-based regeneration planning, implementation and impacts over a range of projects, using an SIA research framework as distinct from SIA applied to project planning.
Numerous factors can transform and impact regional towns and communities and these are evident in the Waitaki, the site of pastoral and irrigated farming alongside hydro-electricity development. They include new technologies and communications systems, viticulture, tourism development, amenity migration (people moving in for the available lifestyle and entrepreneurial opportunities), migration for work (including from overseas), new government policies, regulations, and the investment of local government in multiple initiatives. Along with the local council, communities look to respond to these changes and enhance their wellbeing through regeneration practices.
The research investigated and evaluated community-based and collaborative approaches to regional regeneration over two phases using participatory and action-research methods. Collaboration included a wide range of stakeholders across local government, local central government agencies, iwi, entrepreneurs, businesses, and community groups. Challenges examined have included sustainable tourism, heritage restoration, intensification of land uses, the positive integration of migrant workers and other newcomers, and affordable housing (Taylor and Mackay, 2024).
Community-based approaches
Community and place-based approaches to plan and implement sustainable initiatives are well established amongst regeneration practitioners and organisations since the 1980s (Pomeroy, 2019). SIA research helped us understand the capacity of the community to lead and adapt to future challenges, including climate change, losses of biodiversity, heritage, cultural values and social exclusion, through innovative leadership and local collaboration (Mackay and Taylor, 2024). An example is the Lower Waitaki Water Sports Park project, which showed how multiple uses of an irrigation system buffer pond for outdoor recreation evolved in several steps through the initiatives of farmers and other stakeholders, drawing on local leadership, philanthropy, and community-based efforts (Mackay and Perkins, 2019).
A community-based approach requires identification of a common and agreed set of community values and goals for change to achieve desired outcomes (Stocker and Pollard, 1994). It also requires the adoption of shared responsibilities and the joint application of available resources. Often the approach entails a place-based orientation to change as local geographies define the locus of change and the participants in regeneration (Fitzgerald, 1999). These places are complex and dynamic, with multifunctional economies experiencing periodic investment and dis-investment and frequent changes in national, regional, and local settings for policy and regulation.
Our research found regeneration at the community level encompasses strong participation and action elements to achieve sustainable outcomes. Success is based on communities, local councils and all stakeholders utilising frameworks for impact assessment, sustainability and community wellbeing at the strategic level (policy and planning) as well as for planning and implementing specific projects. Regeneration problems require stakeholders to work together with specific communities to enhance outcomes for social wellbeing, while sharing resources, building capacity, and then planning and implementing change.
Analysis of the Waitaki regeneration initiatives focused on heritage and ecological restoration efforts associated with hospitality and tourism: in the Ōamaru main street, waterfront and heritage area; along the Alps to Ocean (A2O) cycle trail; and for the Waitaki Aspiring Geopark (Mackay et al., 2019). A subsequent phase focused on the wellbeing of migrant worker groups and development of a district housing strategy.[1]
The Ōamaru waterfront and heritage areas
The Ōamaru waterfront and heritage areas encompass the Ōamaru harbour and wharves, a precinct of restored Victorian era heritage buildings and several outstanding, restored heritage buildings along the main street, including the Ōamaru Opera House, a heritage-listed building that is a strong presence in the main street leading into the Victorian precinct and waterfront areas. Waterfront developments add to the surrounding area, such as the redevelopment of Holmes Wharf (used by a small commercial fishing fleet, charter boats and recreational boats), the Ōamaru Blue Penguin Colony facility and a waterfront restaurant. Multiple enterprises are now located in or adjacent to the precinct, using upgraded or new buildings including a commercial gym, a café, a bakery and a brew house.
Since a feasibility study back in 1987, Council strategic leadership and efforts of the Whitestone Civic Trust saw many buildings receive substantial investment, redevelopment, or repurposing. The area became a focus for diversifying the local economy, alongside efforts to protect heritage, hold cultural events, encourage the arts, enhance amenity values and outdoor recreation, and develop Ōamaru as a destination for domestic and international visitors.
Success factors in these initiatives include incremental change, where regeneration activity is a series of small steps over an open, extended time span. At the core was flexible, strategic planning and investment by the local Council, drawing on external expertise and resources such as heritage funding, while providing a framework for public, private and community investments and actions. It was also a community driven approach with diverse leadership and extensive voluntary inputs across multiple initiatives and opportunities building on local entrepreneurialism, commercial and individual benefactors, and considerable voluntary activity.
The Alps to Ocean (A2O) cycle trail and Waitaki Whitestone Geopark
The Ōamaru waterfront now forms the finishing point for the Alps to Ocean cycle trail (A2O) a 300km cycle trail that descends from the base of Aoraki Mt Cook through the Waitaki Valley. It passes through mountain landscapes, by hydro-electricity lakes and canals, along the braided-river system, and past geological and heritage features such as Māori rock art.
These features are promoted via the Waitaki Whitestone Global (UNESCO) Geopark, a further, visitor-focused regeneration initiative. The A2O links key geological features and interest points of the Geopark. The District Council developed the Geopark in collaboration with local voluntary organisations to showcase sites with geological interest and to promote local economic activity. Both the A2O and Geopark were led by enthusiastic local groups working alongside the Council, looking for positive impacts on employment and communities.
Our research (Mackay, et al., 2019) found that the A2O and the Geopark are indeed helping to diversify and revitalise the local economy. A feature of both initiatives is that they integrate and leverage regeneration actions across ecological restoration and heritage, such as new uses of buildings, wetlands and landscape restoration and conservation, and new businesses such as cafés and cycle operators. Council and community leaders achieved this integration through their planning and economic development officers, an economic development strategy co-designed in a Treaty-based partnership with Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, event management, a biodiversity fund and heritage protection, with resources allocated to support these activities and their positive impacts on people and communities.
The A2O initiative successfully drew on multiple funding sources, including Nga Haerenga/New Zealand Cycle Trail, two district councils (Mackenzie and Waitaki) and the Department of Conservation to plan and construct the trail. For the Geopark, the Council provided necessary resources and an official base for development of the geopark concept and its promotional uses, with the subsequent UNESCO application and an operative Geopark representing a collaboration between numerous organisations and individuals.
Locality-based relationships and social capital underlie these community-led initiatives with investments by central and local government adding to local capacity and skills. The A2O and Geopark attractions provide a focus for regeneration activity in small communities by entrepreneurial individuals and families, adding to local economies while building social capital and community resilience. A flexible approach means developments can link and scale up smaller developments to a district-wide strategy and, in the case of cycle trails, to a regional network.
Community leaders recognise there is an issue, however, with burgeoning visitor numbers at some sites such as Elephant Rocks and Moeraki Boulders testing the adaptive capacity of local communities and infrastructure, and requiring additional investment and management. A sustainable planning framework would assist by monitoring social impacts (for example, carrying capacity of sites, visitor satisfaction, local employment, community cohesion), and support future strategic and natural resource plans, and infrastructure investment.
The Waitaki District Housing Strategy
The Waitaki district housing strategy was the result of a collaborative, community-based Housing Taskforce convened by Stronger Waitaki, the networked community health and well-being agency. The research team used action research methods to help inform and facilitate the strategy process from 2019-24. The strategy addressed housing issues and needs, especially for migrant workers, elderly residents, those on low incomes, and youth entering the housing market.
Through surveys and workshops the strategy addressed the provision of short and longer-term social housing by the Council and other providers, transitional housing and discrimination in the housing market due to race, gender and age. Information workshops addressed the rights of landlords and tenants, and considered opportunities to advance financial literacy around home ownership. The condition, maintenance and warmth of housing was addressed through access to national funding programmes. Planning issues raised included the provision of new greenfield areas, and multiple use of heritage and commercial buildings. New planning rules around density should allow for urban intensification by the subdivision of larger sections with single dwellings, and fewer height restrictions.
Monitoring and evaluation are fundamental to an adaptive process for implementing the strategy - an integral part of the process of designing and implementing a change process, whether it be a project, strategy, policy or plan (Taylor and Mackay, 2023). The research team developed a monitoring and evaluation framework (spreadsheet) for the housing strategy in collaboration with Stronger Waitaki and the Taskforce. This framework was then used to help guide participants in preparing for their regular meeting and discussions about strategy progress. This framework is also important in providing consistency when new people join the Taskforce or as agency personnel change.
The housing strategy successfully drew on the valuable leadership of Stronger Waitaki, the Mayor, councillors and council planning staff. The strategy also included vital input from key stakeholders and the BBHTC research team in the Housing Taskforce, who participated by co-producing knowledge, and discussions during meetings and workshops. Research input assisted with a logical approach to developing and writing the strategy, through to assisting with implementation. As the strategy has addressed a complex social issue, it needs to be flexible and evolving during implementation. The Taskforce brought new information to the table as the strategy was developed, implemented and adapted. The ability to clarify and adapt the objectives and actions of the strategy over time is fundamental to success and necessitates ongoing co-production of knowledge, using an impact monitoring and evaluation framework (Taylor et al., 2019).
Success factors for planning regeneration
Success factors from across the Waitaki cases are consolidated in the Table below including from comparison with international regeneration experiences. They are presented as generic criteria for successful practice of community-based regeneration for use by communities when planning a regeneration initiative. Knowing what usually drives success can help in project development, implementation and evaluation - a basis for questions about what works well and why.
Regeneration in rural areas and regions is a complex, multi-dimensional process creating a range of impacts on community wellbeing. It takes time and effort to mobilise localised, sustainable, community-based developments, drawing on and extending the capacity of local communities and government (Stocker and Pollard, 1994; Powe et al., 2015). Social impact assessment can play an important part, especially when approached from a community base.
In Aotearoa New Zealand rural areas and regions face considerable obstacles to develop and thrive. An extended period of neo-liberal restructuring since the 1980s saw a re-focus of regional development with greater emphasis on the roles of local government, non-government organisations and rural communities (Nel, 2015). These local actions often face competing trajectories of development (Argent, 2011) especially around environmental and heritage impacts and their management.
Typically, successful community-based regeneration is based on a vision and plan inclusive of a broad representation of residents; as McMahon (2017, page 21) points out: “failing to plan simply means planning to fail”. While there are plenty of failures in regeneration practice, often expending considerable time and external resources, the greatest successes are gained by initiatives shaped around existing assets and local capacity. However, community leaders and organisations often struggle to assess fully the problems they face and to plan responses. They need to know what constitutes successful regeneration: what works well and why.
By implication, local governments are key players in community-based change. Central government agencies and external stakeholder groups can also play an important part, but necessarily must consider shifting towards a bottom-up approach to support local initiatives and their leadership. The role of external agencies therefore becomes facilitative and focuses on being flexible and effective in delivering local services (Powe, et al., 2015).
A key finding from our research is the need to support community organisations and leadership throughout the project cycle, to co-produce knowledge about social impacts and wellbeing outcomes of actions taken, and to identify new opportunities for regeneration and social development. This approach requires SIA research on longer-term changes and emerging issues, with better-informed policy, regulation and plan making as a result. Refer to the Guidelines on Social Impact Assessment for Thriving Regions and Communities (Taylor and Mackay, 2022) to support communities with a practical approach to assessing and communicating the nature of social impacts of regeneration initiatives.
Lessons from the South Island
Our research into regeneration practices was focused on the Waitaki District in the South Island and is an output from the Thriving Regions (South Island) research theme of the Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge (BBHTC) as reported by Mackay et al. (2018). The Waitaki research was part of a set of case studies focused on North Otago, Timaru and Ashburton to understand how settlements and communities might create positive futures for themselves (Perkins et al., 2019). By focusing on the Waitaki Valley, one of the largest catchments in the country, we gained insights into transformational changes in natural resource uses that directly affect the built environment and social wellbeing of regional towns (Ōamaru), smaller settlements and rural communities.
In the Waitaki we found a diverse geography where resource cycles are driving social and economic transitions. More specifically, we found there is a mix of regeneration activities at different stages in their life cycle, some being planned, others built, others operational, or under periodic maintenance, renewal, restructuring or closure. The resulting mosaic of economic and employment activity impacts social wellbeing outcomes that SIA research can then focus on (Mackay and Taylor, 2024). Our analysis set the scene for understanding place-based regeneration planning, implementation and impacts over a range of projects, using an SIA research framework as distinct from SIA applied to project planning.
Numerous factors can transform and impact regional towns and communities and these are evident in the Waitaki, the site of pastoral and irrigated farming alongside hydro-electricity development. They include new technologies and communications systems, viticulture, tourism development, amenity migration (people moving in for the available lifestyle and entrepreneurial opportunities), migration for work (including from overseas), new government policies, regulations, and the investment of local government in multiple initiatives. Along with the local council, communities look to respond to these changes and enhance their wellbeing through regeneration practices.
The research investigated and evaluated community-based and collaborative approaches to regional regeneration over two phases using participatory and action-research methods. Collaboration included a wide range of stakeholders across local government, local central government agencies, iwi, entrepreneurs, businesses, and community groups. Challenges examined have included sustainable tourism, heritage restoration, intensification of land uses, the positive integration of migrant workers and other newcomers, and affordable housing (Taylor and Mackay, 2024).
Community-based approaches
Community and place-based approaches to plan and implement sustainable initiatives are well established amongst regeneration practitioners and organisations since the 1980s (Pomeroy, 2019). SIA research helped us understand the capacity of the community to lead and adapt to future challenges, including climate change, losses of biodiversity, heritage, cultural values and social exclusion, through innovative leadership and local collaboration (Mackay and Taylor, 2024). An example is the Lower Waitaki Water Sports Park project, which showed how multiple uses of an irrigation system buffer pond for outdoor recreation evolved in several steps through the initiatives of farmers and other stakeholders, drawing on local leadership, philanthropy, and community-based efforts (Mackay and Perkins, 2019).
A community-based approach requires identification of a common and agreed set of community values and goals for change to achieve desired outcomes (Stocker and Pollard, 1994). It also requires the adoption of shared responsibilities and the joint application of available resources. Often the approach entails a place-based orientation to change as local geographies define the locus of change and the participants in regeneration (Fitzgerald, 1999). These places are complex and dynamic, with multifunctional economies experiencing periodic investment and dis-investment and frequent changes in national, regional, and local settings for policy and regulation.
Our research found regeneration at the community level encompasses strong participation and action elements to achieve sustainable outcomes. Success is based on communities, local councils and all stakeholders utilising frameworks for impact assessment, sustainability and community wellbeing at the strategic level (policy and planning) as well as for planning and implementing specific projects. Regeneration problems require stakeholders to work together with specific communities to enhance outcomes for social wellbeing, while sharing resources, building capacity, and then planning and implementing change.
Analysis of the Waitaki regeneration initiatives focused on heritage and ecological restoration efforts associated with hospitality and tourism: in the Ōamaru main street, waterfront and heritage area; along the Alps to Ocean (A2O) cycle trail; and for the Waitaki Aspiring Geopark (Mackay et al., 2019). A subsequent phase focused on the wellbeing of migrant worker groups and development of a district housing strategy.[1]
The Ōamaru waterfront and heritage areas
The Ōamaru waterfront and heritage areas encompass the Ōamaru harbour and wharves, a precinct of restored Victorian era heritage buildings and several outstanding, restored heritage buildings along the main street, including the Ōamaru Opera House, a heritage-listed building that is a strong presence in the main street leading into the Victorian precinct and waterfront areas. Waterfront developments add to the surrounding area, such as the redevelopment of Holmes Wharf (used by a small commercial fishing fleet, charter boats and recreational boats), the Ōamaru Blue Penguin Colony facility and a waterfront restaurant. Multiple enterprises are now located in or adjacent to the precinct, using upgraded or new buildings including a commercial gym, a café, a bakery and a brew house.
Since a feasibility study back in 1987, Council strategic leadership and efforts of the Whitestone Civic Trust saw many buildings receive substantial investment, redevelopment, or repurposing. The area became a focus for diversifying the local economy, alongside efforts to protect heritage, hold cultural events, encourage the arts, enhance amenity values and outdoor recreation, and develop Ōamaru as a destination for domestic and international visitors.
Success factors in these initiatives include incremental change, where regeneration activity is a series of small steps over an open, extended time span. At the core was flexible, strategic planning and investment by the local Council, drawing on external expertise and resources such as heritage funding, while providing a framework for public, private and community investments and actions. It was also a community driven approach with diverse leadership and extensive voluntary inputs across multiple initiatives and opportunities building on local entrepreneurialism, commercial and individual benefactors, and considerable voluntary activity.
The Alps to Ocean (A2O) cycle trail and Waitaki Whitestone Geopark
The Ōamaru waterfront now forms the finishing point for the Alps to Ocean cycle trail (A2O) a 300km cycle trail that descends from the base of Aoraki Mt Cook through the Waitaki Valley. It passes through mountain landscapes, by hydro-electricity lakes and canals, along the braided-river system, and past geological and heritage features such as Māori rock art.
These features are promoted via the Waitaki Whitestone Global (UNESCO) Geopark, a further, visitor-focused regeneration initiative. The A2O links key geological features and interest points of the Geopark. The District Council developed the Geopark in collaboration with local voluntary organisations to showcase sites with geological interest and to promote local economic activity. Both the A2O and Geopark were led by enthusiastic local groups working alongside the Council, looking for positive impacts on employment and communities.
Our research (Mackay, et al., 2019) found that the A2O and the Geopark are indeed helping to diversify and revitalise the local economy. A feature of both initiatives is that they integrate and leverage regeneration actions across ecological restoration and heritage, such as new uses of buildings, wetlands and landscape restoration and conservation, and new businesses such as cafés and cycle operators. Council and community leaders achieved this integration through their planning and economic development officers, an economic development strategy co-designed in a Treaty-based partnership with Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, event management, a biodiversity fund and heritage protection, with resources allocated to support these activities and their positive impacts on people and communities.
The A2O initiative successfully drew on multiple funding sources, including Nga Haerenga/New Zealand Cycle Trail, two district councils (Mackenzie and Waitaki) and the Department of Conservation to plan and construct the trail. For the Geopark, the Council provided necessary resources and an official base for development of the geopark concept and its promotional uses, with the subsequent UNESCO application and an operative Geopark representing a collaboration between numerous organisations and individuals.
Locality-based relationships and social capital underlie these community-led initiatives with investments by central and local government adding to local capacity and skills. The A2O and Geopark attractions provide a focus for regeneration activity in small communities by entrepreneurial individuals and families, adding to local economies while building social capital and community resilience. A flexible approach means developments can link and scale up smaller developments to a district-wide strategy and, in the case of cycle trails, to a regional network.
Community leaders recognise there is an issue, however, with burgeoning visitor numbers at some sites such as Elephant Rocks and Moeraki Boulders testing the adaptive capacity of local communities and infrastructure, and requiring additional investment and management. A sustainable planning framework would assist by monitoring social impacts (for example, carrying capacity of sites, visitor satisfaction, local employment, community cohesion), and support future strategic and natural resource plans, and infrastructure investment.
The Waitaki District Housing Strategy
The Waitaki district housing strategy was the result of a collaborative, community-based Housing Taskforce convened by Stronger Waitaki, the networked community health and well-being agency. The research team used action research methods to help inform and facilitate the strategy process from 2019-24. The strategy addressed housing issues and needs, especially for migrant workers, elderly residents, those on low incomes, and youth entering the housing market.
Through surveys and workshops the strategy addressed the provision of short and longer-term social housing by the Council and other providers, transitional housing and discrimination in the housing market due to race, gender and age. Information workshops addressed the rights of landlords and tenants, and considered opportunities to advance financial literacy around home ownership. The condition, maintenance and warmth of housing was addressed through access to national funding programmes. Planning issues raised included the provision of new greenfield areas, and multiple use of heritage and commercial buildings. New planning rules around density should allow for urban intensification by the subdivision of larger sections with single dwellings, and fewer height restrictions.
Monitoring and evaluation are fundamental to an adaptive process for implementing the strategy - an integral part of the process of designing and implementing a change process, whether it be a project, strategy, policy or plan (Taylor and Mackay, 2023). The research team developed a monitoring and evaluation framework (spreadsheet) for the housing strategy in collaboration with Stronger Waitaki and the Taskforce. This framework was then used to help guide participants in preparing for their regular meeting and discussions about strategy progress. This framework is also important in providing consistency when new people join the Taskforce or as agency personnel change.
The housing strategy successfully drew on the valuable leadership of Stronger Waitaki, the Mayor, councillors and council planning staff. The strategy also included vital input from key stakeholders and the BBHTC research team in the Housing Taskforce, who participated by co-producing knowledge, and discussions during meetings and workshops. Research input assisted with a logical approach to developing and writing the strategy, through to assisting with implementation. As the strategy has addressed a complex social issue, it needs to be flexible and evolving during implementation. The Taskforce brought new information to the table as the strategy was developed, implemented and adapted. The ability to clarify and adapt the objectives and actions of the strategy over time is fundamental to success and necessitates ongoing co-production of knowledge, using an impact monitoring and evaluation framework (Taylor et al., 2019).
Success factors for planning regeneration
Success factors from across the Waitaki cases are consolidated in the Table below including from comparison with international regeneration experiences. They are presented as generic criteria for successful practice of community-based regeneration for use by communities when planning a regeneration initiative. Knowing what usually drives success can help in project development, implementation and evaluation - a basis for questions about what works well and why.
The role of social impact assessment in regeneration initiatives
SIA can support community organisations to take a leadership role throughout the project cycle, using co-production of knowledge about social impacts. We argue for renewed attention to the importance of local knowledge in social impact assessment alongside secondary data, through an iterative mixed method approach (Taylor, et al., 2021). Commonly there will be a mix of operators, sector organisations, agencies of local, regional, iwi and central governments and community groups involved in this work to co-produce knowledge, designing and leading actions around new opportunities for regeneration and social development. The approach ideally will include a feedback loop to complete the project cycle through SIA research on longer-term changes and emerging issues, with better-informed policy, regulation and plan making as a result (Mackay and Taylor, 2024).
The antithesis to this approach is for local government and local agencies to rely on external sources of research, data and consultancies rather than build an internal ability to be part of a co-production approach. This building of local capacity in social analysis with iwi, the community and key stakeholders is key to co-production of knowledge at a local level. In respect to social aspects, co-production of knowledge requires jointly developing frameworks for assessment and evaluation, and theories of regional change that challenge current thinking. Here, we also acknowledge the importance of SIA Research (Mackay and Taylor, 2024) as reflected in the case studies we have discussed in this paper.
Conclusions
Community-based approaches to regeneration practice demonstrate the principles of collective action and the empowerment of community governance, leadership, organisations and individuals. Community development is an essential part of regeneration planning in rural and regional areas, entailing processes for community action such as building relationships, leadership, and sharing of information and resources (Caswell, 2001). Typically, community groups and local organisations identify the need for an intervention or set of interventions that enhance community wellbeing and then set out to share responsibilities for a strategy or plan and to undertake the necessary actions (Stocker and Pollard, 1994; Fitzgerald, 1999). To adopt this approach, community groups need the necessary skills, information and financial resources, broadly defined here as community capacity, to undertake SIA.
Powe et. al (2015) highlighted that to develop and implement a local strategy there must be a spirit of collaboration from the start. We add here that the co-production of knowledge is a feature of this effort to build local capacity in community-based SIA, especially in the areas of data collection and analysis.
Footnote
[1] Further details of these case studies and research results are available in a working paper at https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publication/what-makes-for-success-in-regeneration-initiatives-for-thriving-regions-final-working-paper-bbhtc-thriving-regions-waitaki-and-oamaru-case-study/
References
Argent, N. (2011). Trouble in Paradise? Governing Australia’s multifunctional rural landscapes. Australian Geographer, 42(2), pp. 183-205.
Caswell, S. (2001). Community Capacity Building and Social Policy - What Can Be Achieved? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 17, pp. 22-35.
Fitzgerald, G. (1999). Community involvement in conservation management issues: A New Zealand action research project. Department of Conservation Technical series, 21., Wellington.
Mackay, M. & Perkins, H. C. (2019). Making space for community in super-productivist rural settings. Journal of Rural Studies, 68, pp 1-12.
Mackay M. & Taylor, C. N. (2024). Application of Social Impact Assessment during project operation and closure. Chapter 13 in F. Vanclay and A. Esteves (Eds.), Handbook on Social Impact Assessment and Management, Edward Elgar.
Mackay, M., Taylor, N., & Perkins, H.C. (2018). Planning for Regeneration in the town of Ōamaru. Lincoln Planning Review, 9(1-2), pp. 20-32.
McMahon, E. (2017). Why some places thrive and others fail: the new formula for community revitalization. Virginia Town and City, Feb., pp. 21-25.
Nel, E. (2015). Evolving regional and local economic development in New Zealand. Local Economy, 30(1), pp. 67-77.
Perkins, H. C., Mackay, M., Levy, D., Campbell, M., Taylor, N., Hills, R. & Johnston, K. (2019). Revealing regional regeneration projects in three small towns in Aotearoa—New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer, 75(3), pp. 140-151.
Pomeroy, A. (2019). Insights from past and present social science literature on the (unequal) development of New Zealand's rural communities. New Zealand Geographer, 75(3), 204-215.
Powe, N.; Pringle, R., & Hart, T. (2015). Matching the process to the challenge within small town regeneration. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 86, No. 2 (2015), pp. 177-202.
Stocker, L. & Pollard, L. (1994). In my backyard: community-based sustainable development in regional areas. Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Taylor, C.N. & Mackay, M. (2022). Social Impact Assessment: Guidelines for Thriving Regions and Communities. Wellington: Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publications/thriving_regions/Taylor_Mackay_2022_social_impact_assessment_guidelines.pdf
Taylor, C. N. & Mackay M. (2024). Application of Social Impact Assessment in planning a project: from concept to approvals. Chapter 11 in F. Vanclay and A. Esteves (Eds.), Handbook on Social Impact Assessment and Management, Edward Elgar.
Taylor, C.N., Mackay, M. & Perkins, H. (2021). Social impact assessment and (realist) evaluation: meeting of the methods. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 39(6), 450-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1928425
SIA can support community organisations to take a leadership role throughout the project cycle, using co-production of knowledge about social impacts. We argue for renewed attention to the importance of local knowledge in social impact assessment alongside secondary data, through an iterative mixed method approach (Taylor, et al., 2021). Commonly there will be a mix of operators, sector organisations, agencies of local, regional, iwi and central governments and community groups involved in this work to co-produce knowledge, designing and leading actions around new opportunities for regeneration and social development. The approach ideally will include a feedback loop to complete the project cycle through SIA research on longer-term changes and emerging issues, with better-informed policy, regulation and plan making as a result (Mackay and Taylor, 2024).
The antithesis to this approach is for local government and local agencies to rely on external sources of research, data and consultancies rather than build an internal ability to be part of a co-production approach. This building of local capacity in social analysis with iwi, the community and key stakeholders is key to co-production of knowledge at a local level. In respect to social aspects, co-production of knowledge requires jointly developing frameworks for assessment and evaluation, and theories of regional change that challenge current thinking. Here, we also acknowledge the importance of SIA Research (Mackay and Taylor, 2024) as reflected in the case studies we have discussed in this paper.
Conclusions
Community-based approaches to regeneration practice demonstrate the principles of collective action and the empowerment of community governance, leadership, organisations and individuals. Community development is an essential part of regeneration planning in rural and regional areas, entailing processes for community action such as building relationships, leadership, and sharing of information and resources (Caswell, 2001). Typically, community groups and local organisations identify the need for an intervention or set of interventions that enhance community wellbeing and then set out to share responsibilities for a strategy or plan and to undertake the necessary actions (Stocker and Pollard, 1994; Fitzgerald, 1999). To adopt this approach, community groups need the necessary skills, information and financial resources, broadly defined here as community capacity, to undertake SIA.
Powe et. al (2015) highlighted that to develop and implement a local strategy there must be a spirit of collaboration from the start. We add here that the co-production of knowledge is a feature of this effort to build local capacity in community-based SIA, especially in the areas of data collection and analysis.
Footnote
[1] Further details of these case studies and research results are available in a working paper at https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publication/what-makes-for-success-in-regeneration-initiatives-for-thriving-regions-final-working-paper-bbhtc-thriving-regions-waitaki-and-oamaru-case-study/
References
Argent, N. (2011). Trouble in Paradise? Governing Australia’s multifunctional rural landscapes. Australian Geographer, 42(2), pp. 183-205.
Caswell, S. (2001). Community Capacity Building and Social Policy - What Can Be Achieved? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 17, pp. 22-35.
Fitzgerald, G. (1999). Community involvement in conservation management issues: A New Zealand action research project. Department of Conservation Technical series, 21., Wellington.
Mackay, M. & Perkins, H. C. (2019). Making space for community in super-productivist rural settings. Journal of Rural Studies, 68, pp 1-12.
Mackay M. & Taylor, C. N. (2024). Application of Social Impact Assessment during project operation and closure. Chapter 13 in F. Vanclay and A. Esteves (Eds.), Handbook on Social Impact Assessment and Management, Edward Elgar.
Mackay, M., Taylor, N., & Perkins, H.C. (2018). Planning for Regeneration in the town of Ōamaru. Lincoln Planning Review, 9(1-2), pp. 20-32.
McMahon, E. (2017). Why some places thrive and others fail: the new formula for community revitalization. Virginia Town and City, Feb., pp. 21-25.
Nel, E. (2015). Evolving regional and local economic development in New Zealand. Local Economy, 30(1), pp. 67-77.
Perkins, H. C., Mackay, M., Levy, D., Campbell, M., Taylor, N., Hills, R. & Johnston, K. (2019). Revealing regional regeneration projects in three small towns in Aotearoa—New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer, 75(3), pp. 140-151.
Pomeroy, A. (2019). Insights from past and present social science literature on the (unequal) development of New Zealand's rural communities. New Zealand Geographer, 75(3), 204-215.
Powe, N.; Pringle, R., & Hart, T. (2015). Matching the process to the challenge within small town regeneration. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 86, No. 2 (2015), pp. 177-202.
Stocker, L. & Pollard, L. (1994). In my backyard: community-based sustainable development in regional areas. Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Taylor, C.N. & Mackay, M. (2022). Social Impact Assessment: Guidelines for Thriving Regions and Communities. Wellington: Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publications/thriving_regions/Taylor_Mackay_2022_social_impact_assessment_guidelines.pdf
Taylor, C. N. & Mackay M. (2024). Application of Social Impact Assessment in planning a project: from concept to approvals. Chapter 11 in F. Vanclay and A. Esteves (Eds.), Handbook on Social Impact Assessment and Management, Edward Elgar.
Taylor, C.N., Mackay, M. & Perkins, H. (2021). Social impact assessment and (realist) evaluation: meeting of the methods. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 39(6), 450-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1928425