The Influence Fallacy: Resident Motivations for Participation in an English Housing Regeneration Project

References

• Alcock, P. (2004). Participation or pathology: Contradictory tensions in area based policy. Social Policy and Society, 3, 87–96.10.1017/S1474746403001556
   Google Scholar
• Allen, C. (2003). Joined-up working, welfare professionalism and the pursuit of the ‘pure relationship’: A critical encounter with the sociology of trust. Housing, Theory and Society, 20, 2–14.10.1080/14036090310004559
   Google Scholar
• Allen, C. (2008). Housing Market Renewal and Social Class. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, M., Newman, J., & Sullivan, H. (2004). Power, participation, and political renewal: Theoretical perspectives on public participation under New Labour in Britain. Social Politics, 11, 267–279.10.1093/sp/jxh034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, M., Newman, J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Power, participation and political renewal. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, S. (2009). Constructing the social impact statement to measure the full cost to public housing tenants of urban renewal. In N. Davidson, & R. Malloy (Eds.), Affordable housing and public-private partnerships (pp. 129–168). New York, NY: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Blakeley, G., & Evans, B. (2008). ‘It’s like maintaining a hedge’ constraints on citizen engagement in community regeneration in East Manchester. Public Policy and Administration, 23, 100–113.10.1177/0952076707083289
   Google Scholar
• Blakeley, G., & Evans, B. (2009). Who participates, how and why in urban regeneration projects? The case of the new ‘city’ of East Manchester. Social Policy & Administration, 43, 15–32.10.1111/spol.2009.43.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the quality of public governance: Indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 313–328.10.1177/0020852303693002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, Q. (2012). Proud to be a tenant: The construction of common cause among residents in social housing. Housing Studies, 27, 1124–1141.10.1080/02673037.2012.728574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, D., Hambleton, R., & Hoggett, P. (1994). The politics of decentralisation: Revitalising local democracy. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-23397-7
   Google Scholar
• Burton, P. (2009). Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. Evaluation, 15, 263–284.10.1177/1356389009105881
   Google Scholar
• Burton, P., Goodlad, R., & Croft, J. (2006). How would we know what works?: Context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement. Evaluation, 12, 294–312.10.1177/1356389006069136
   Google Scholar
• Cabinet Office. (2010). Building the big society. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78979/building-big-society_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cairncross, L., Clapham, D., & Goodlad, R. (1997). Housing management, consumers and citizens. London: SAGE.10.4324/9780203415955
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, D. (2011). PM’s speech on big society. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-big-society
   Google Scholar
• Cole, I. (2012). Housing market renewal and demolition in England in the 2000s: The governance of ‘wicked problems’. International Journal of Housing Policy, 12, 347–366.10.1080/14616718.2012.709672
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cooke, & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 1–15). London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall, A. (2004). Introduction: New democratic spaces? The politics and dynamics of institutionalised participation. IDS Bulletin New Democratic Spaces, 35(2), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2012). National planning policy framework. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2016a). Estate regeneration – statement. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG]. (2016b). Heseltine launches panel of experts to kick-start estates regeneration. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/heseltine-launches-panel-of-experts-to-kick-start-estates-regeneration
   Google Scholar
• Dekker, K. (2007). Social capital, neighbourhood attachment and participation in distressed urban areas. A case study in The Hague and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 22, 355–379.10.1080/02673030701254103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinham, A. (2005). Empowered or overpowered? The real experiences of local participation in the UK’s New Deal for Communities. Community Development Journal, 40, 301–312.10.1093/cdj/bsi019
   Google Scholar
• Foley, P., & Martin, S. (2000). A new deal for the community? Public participation in regeneration and local service delivery. Policy and Politics, 28, 479–492.10.1332/0305573002501090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus. Critical reflections on the post socialist condition. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskin, K., & Smith, J.D. (1997). A new civil Europe? A study of the extent and role of volunteering. London: The National Volunteering Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Grimsley, M., Hickman, P., Lawless, P., Manning, J., & Wilson, I. (2005). New deal for communities national evaluation: Community involvement and social capital. Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, S., & Hickman, P. (2011). Resident participation in housing regeneration in France. Housing Studies, 26, 827–843.10.1080/02673037.2011.593127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, B. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42, 441–454.10.1080/10361140701513570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickman, P. (2006). Approaches to tenant participation in the English Local Authority sector. Housing Studies, 21, 209–225.10.1080/02673030500484802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höppner, C., Frick, J., & Buchecker, M. (2008). What drives people’s willingness to discuss local landscape development? Landscape Research, 33, 605–622.10.1080/01426390802013549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J.E., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5, 419–436.10.1080/1464935042000293170
   Google Scholar
• Jones, P. (2003). Urban regeneration’s poisoned chalice: Is there an impasse in (community) participation-based policy? Urban Studies, 40, 581–601.10.1080/0042098032000053932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, P., & Pearson, S. (2012). Outcomes from community engagement in urban regeneration: Evidence from England’s new deal for communities programme. Planning Theory & Practice, 13, 509–527.
   Google Scholar
• Lepofsky, J., & Fraser, J. (2003). Building community citizens: Claiming the right to place-making in the city. Urban Studies, 40, 127–142.10.1080/00420980220080201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquart-Pyatt, S., & Petrzelka, P. (2008). Trust, the democratic process, and involvement in a rural community. Rural Sociology, 73, 250–274.10.1526/003601108784514598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathers, J., Parry, J., & Jones, S. (2008). Exploring resident (non-)participation in the UK new deal for communities regeneration programme. Urban Studies, 45, 591–606.10.1177/0042098007087336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Audit Office [NAO]. (2007). Department for communities and local government: Housing market renewal. London: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Nienhuis, I., van Dijk, T., & de Roo, G. (2011). Let’s collaborate! But who’s really collaborating? Individual interests as a leitmotiv for urban renewal and regeneration strategies. Planning Theory & Practice, 12, 95–109.10.1080/14649357.2011.546671
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM]. (2005). Diversity and equality in planning. London: ODPM.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, C., Vedlitz, A., Whitten, G., Matlock, M., Alston, L., Peterson, T., & Gilbertz, S. (2005). Citizen participation and representation in collaborative engagement processes. In P. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 137–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, R., & Birchall, J. (2005). A joined-up approach to user participation in public services: Strengthening the “participation chain”. Social Policy & Administration, 39, 260–283.10.1111/spol.2005.39.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, M. (2007). Community participation in the real world: Opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44, 297–317.10.1080/00420980601074987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teernstra, A.B., & Pinkster, F.M. (2015). Participation in neighbourhood regeneration: Achievements of residents in a Dutch disadvantaged neighbourhood. Urban Research & Practice, 9, 56–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, D. (2010). Rethinking the role of markets in urban renewal: The housing market renewal initiative in England. Housing, Theory and Society, 27, 313–331.10.1080/14036090903160026
   Google Scholar
• Wright, J., Parry, J., Mathers, J., Jones, S., & Orford, J. (2006). Assessing the participatory potential of Britain’s New Deal for Communities: Opportunities for and constraints to ‘bottom-up’ community participation. Policy Studies, 27, 347–361.10.1080/01442870601010051
   Google Scholar