Residents' diverse perspectives of the impact of neighbourhood renewal on quality of life and physical activity engagement: improvements but unresolved issues.

Few studies have been published on the reactions of residents to modifications of their residential landscape. We explored residents' experiences of home zone remodelling and construction of a new cycle-walkway in a deprived neighbourhood with a particular focus on aspects of quality of life and physical activity participation. Focus groups (n=5 groups, 21 individuals) were used to investigate residents' perceptions of the effects of neighbourhood change on their lives. Consultation by planners was received positively. Several aspects of the neighbourhood were perceived to have improved, including spatial aesthetics, lighting and streetscape planting. However, influence on physical activity was minimal. Car-focused behaviour and ownership remained dominant, and safety related concerns limited behavioural choices. Residents highlighted many socio-environmental challenges that remained such as sense of neighbourhood safety, poor public transport provision, people's parking behaviour locally, and problem neighbours, and these tended to dominate conversations. Infrastructural intervention may be one important part of multi-layered solutions to improved neighbourhood life. Copyright Â

Background

The recent strategic review of health inequalities (The Marmot Review, 2010) confirmed the extent to which social and physical characteristics of communities and localities contribute to health behaviours, physical and mental health, and well-being. It emphasised the important role of social capital, the links that bind communities, as a buffer against poor health. It called for health policy to prioritise provision of good quality open and green spaces, active travel, the food environment, reduced social isolation and removal of barriers to community participation. Interventions which improve actual or perceived neighbourhood characteristics such as aesthetics, security, and social interaction, or which lead to a sense that the community has been ‘invested in,’ may have potential to improve quality of life and well-being, neighbourhood pride, and perhaps facilitate health behaviour change (Jenkins et al., 2008; Semenza and Krishnasamy, 2007; Sorensen et al., 1998).

Physical activity is associated with risk reduction of coronary heart disease, some cancers, type-2 diabetes, depression and dementia (Department of Health, 2004; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). However, people with low educational attainment, socio-economic position and living in deprived neighbourhoods may be amongst the least active in society, and may find it particularly difficult to change health-related behaviour (Arriaza Jones et al., 1998; Department of Health, 2004; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007). Associational evidence indicates that street layout, availability of green space, local retail outlets, public transport, level of deprivation, and ‘walkability’ of the local environment may influence activity levels, as well as residents' perceptions of the quality of their locale (Ball, 2006; Duncan et al., 2005; Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002).

The combined consideration of intrapersonal, interpersonal and environmental factors has led to the application of socio-ecological models to understand aspects of health behaviour, including physical activity (Cochrane and Davey, 2008; Dahlgren and Whitehead, 1992; Department of Innovation Universities and Skills, 2007; Fishbein, 2008; Li et al., 2005). Such models have provided a comprehensive framework for the study of complex associations between the factors linking health and place of residence. However, there remain few interventions where characteristics of the urban, suburban or rural landscape have been modified and evaluated. We found fewer than 10 such examples in 4 Active Living Research (2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b), which detailed over 1700 references across more than 300 different journals. A pan-European collection identified 8 selected case studies which aimed to tackle obesity by creating healthy residential environments (World Health Organization, 2007). Few were subjected to academic evaluation or peer review, and only 3 featured built, infrastructural change targeted at adults' physical activity (Rütten et al., 2008; WHO, 2007). Interventions designed for disadvantaged groups living in deprived neighbourhoods are still embryonic (Ball and Crawford, 2005; Michie et al., 2009).

Part of this dearth of evidence may be explained by particular difficulties posed by this type of research. It is rarely feasible to conduct controlled trials and, as residents take time to adjust, there may be delay between intervention and effect (Lawlor et al., 2003). Further challenges include defining the intervention, categorising exposures and measuring outcomes that will be received credibly in the field of public health intervention research (Ogilvie et al., 2006). Additionally, construction schedules are outside the researchers' control and may compromise funding schedules.

Despite such challenges, we undertook an ‘opportunistic’ approach (Gebel et al., 2005) to investigate what it was like for residents of a deprived inner city neighbourhood, pre-, during- and post-construction of urban improvement. Specifically, we investigated the reactions of residents to a new home zone and cycle-walkway construction, with particular focus on aspects of quality of life, social interaction and health-enhancing physical activity.

Method

Setting

The Dings neighbourhood, in Bristol, south-west England, comprises 7 streets (around 120 houses) and covers an area of approximately 150×150 m2 (4 football pitches). Pre-intervention, the area accommodated a primary school, pub and a commercially-run ‘family social club,’ which played an important role in local community life. The Dings was one of the most deprived localities in the city (based on super output unit) and featured in the bottom 10% of wards in England (Bristol City Council, 2005). The housing stock predominantly comprised terraced dwellings. Compared to UK national averages, a greater proportion of homes were socially rented (47.0% versus 12.9%), inhabited by people of non-white ethnicities (23.6% versus 9.1%) and composed of single-person households (64.1% versus 30.1%) (ONS, 2004). The surrounding area was characterised by industrial estates and undeveloped brown-field sites. The neighbourhood had received little investment in preceding years, although the regional development agency had started regenerating derelict wasteland on its west-south-west side. This featured phased construction by private developers, including new-build housing and office complexes. The evaluation was therefore set in the context of wider urban regeneration, as Plate 1 depicts.

Plate 1

Aerial map of the intervention site, with The Dings outlined by the white box.

The intervention

In 2002, The Dings was assigned over £1 million for a home zone development. Funding was provided by the Civitas-Vivaldi (EU) initiative and the local council's New Deal for Communities programme. Home zones are based on the Dutch concept of ‘woonerf,’ meaning ‘living streets,’ and are designed to imitate the traditional, old town districts of European cities. They aim to improve environmental aesthetics, give greater priority to non-motorised road-users and slow traffic, largely by breaking up motorists' sight-lines and introducing shared space, such as pavement-free surfaces (Bristol City Council, 2003; Department for Transport, 2005; Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers, 2002; Parry-Jones et al., 2005). Plate 2 pictures design features and their aims.

Plate 2

Examples of home zone design features and their aims.

In the case of The Dings, a ‘retro-fit’ model was applied, where pre-existing, residential streets were converted and new features added. Home zone construction began in September 2004 and was finished by October 2006, except for minor remedial works and part of one peripheral street.

Additionally, a disused railway bed running alongside the neighbourhood was identified by Sustrans as a site for a short extension of the National Cycle Network. Sustrans is the UK's leading sustainable transport charity, having completed over 12,000 miles of routes over their first 30 years (see www.sustrans.org.uk, 2007). This 275 m traffic-free corridor was planned to link a well-used existing section (between Bristol and Bath) to Bristol's central railway station, with its onward routes to the city centre. Sustrans employed community key-workers to liaise between residents and professional stakeholders throughout constructions. Building started in December 2004 and the path opened in June 2005. By the end of our research period, the through-section to the station (with its city centre connections) still did not exist: the proposed route transected the unfinished housing complex. Plate 3 shows ‘before’ and ‘after’ photographs.

Plate 3

Photographs before and after the intervention.

Study design

A case study observational design was adopted as no control over the schedule for the urban modifications was possible and several perspectives, including a longitudinal view, were needed (Keen and Packwood, 1995). Previous home zone evaluations had primarily taken the form of health impact assessments (Elliston and Maconachie, 2002; Layfield et al., 2003; McNulty et al., 2005), while evaluation of the National Cycle Network had concentrated on Sustrans' user route surveys (Lawlor et al., 2003, www.sustrans.org.uk). In this paper, findings are reported from selected qualitative elements of a broader mixed methods approach. This included door-to-door surveys and observation, via researcher attendance, at resident meetings with the council and developers. Key construction milestones and data collections are summarised in Table 1. Schedules for the latter were adjusted to accommodate building progress over nearly three years. The study was approved by a University of Bristol research ethics committee.

Table 1

Dings project data collections, showing adult resident focus groups in bold.

Date	Status of building works, or key construction milestone	Data collection	Number of participants (further details, as appropriate)
2003
December		Baseline residents' survey (door-to-door)	72
2004
March (3/04)	Before any works	• Focus group—adult residents	10 (7 females, 3 males)
		• School children's activity monitoringa	27 (school year 5)b
Winter–summer	Principal gas and water mains works undertaken	–	–
May		• Focus group—school children	9 (year 5)
		• Focus group—local further education college (students & staff)	9
July		School children's activity monitoringa	15 (year 4) and 15 (year 6)
September	Main HZ construction commenced	Focus group—professional stakeholders	3
December	CW construction commenced. Dings Walk HZ completed	–	–
2005
March (3/05)	CW near completion. Other HZ work underway	Focus group—adult residents	4 (3 females, 1 male), (4)c
May	Birkin St East and Union Rd HZs completed	–	–
June	CW construction completed	–	–
July		Focus group—school children	7 (Dings-resident, mixed ages)
September (9/05)	CW officially opened. Central HZ area completed, outer streets under construction	Focus group—adult residents	10 (8 females, 2 males), (6)c
November	Tyler St and Barton Vale HZs completed	–	–
2006
February		Follow-up residents' survey (door-to-door)	80
March	Birkin St West HZ completed, Oxford St-Barton Rd artwork gateway installed	School children's activity monitoringa	22 (year 5)
April (4/06)	Most of HZ completed	Focus group—adult residents	7 (5 females, 2 males), (5)c
May (5/06)		Focus group—adult residents	5 (all female), (1)c
June		Focus group—professional stakeholders	5
July		• Focus group—school children	8 (year 5)
		• Focus group—school children	8 (Dings-resident, mixed ages)
		• School children's activity monitoringa	13 (year 4) and 10 (year 6)
August	Barton Rd HZ completed, Oxford St-Kingsland Rd artwork gateway installed	–	–
October	Oxford St remains incomplete	–	–

CW=cycle-walkway, HZ=home zone

Objective accelerometry and self-report diaries.

UK school year groups: 4=8–9years, 5=9–10 years, 6=10–11 years.

Figure in brackets denotes number of participants that had attended one or more previous groups. Nine individuals were repeat participants and, in total, there were 36 separate participations.

Focus groups

We wanted to capture what it was like living in the neighbourhood, pre-, during- and post-intervention. Adult residents were recruited to take part in focus groups via hand-delivered invitations to all houses. Postal and verbal reminders at community meetings were also given. Participants were offered a £5 gift voucher for a high-street retail outlet, as a token of thanks. Five focus groups were conducted ‘in series’ (Parker and Tritter, 2006), with details highlighted in Table 1.

We used a brief, semi-structured topic guide, informed by a literature search and local context. Although participants were encouraged to talk freely about urban changes, there was some guided emphasis on aspects of quality of life. A similar guide was used each time, making minor adaptation for the status of works and interim findings (Coulson and Trayers, 2007; Trayers et al., 2006). In 2006 follow-up sessions, we added ‘nominal group technique,’ a group exercise for consensus-building (Jones and Hunter, 1995; Van de Ven and Delbecq, 1972). Although it was critical not to lead, it transpired that there was little spontaneous comment about movement around the area, or physically active pursuits undertaken within the boundaries of the neighbourhood. Towards the end of the last two groups, the facilitator (JC) used gentle probes to elicit whether residents had experienced any changes, since developments, in their day-to-day physical activity, such as getting ‘out and about,’ or movement around and out of the area. Discussions lasted 45–90 min and an assistant facilitator was also present at each group, which were all conducted in the social club. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and supplementary field notes were taken. Transcripts were displayed on club notice-boards and participant feedback invited. Researchers also collected photographic evidence of the works, and used community group meeting minutes and notes to document progress and help triangulate focus group findings.

Analyses

Inductive, thematic analysis was conducted across focus group transcripts, using a framework approach to classify data according to key themes and emergent categories (Bowling, 2009; Ritchie et al., 2003). Transcripts were reduced using an annotating-the-scripts approach with interpretive margin memos, followed by code-mapping and inductive rebuilding, using a long table approach (Catterall and Maclaran, 1997; Morgan, 1993). Some lower-order themes were introduced as conversation topics but emphasis was given to attitudes, incidents, opinions and recollections emerging from residents' experiences. Higher order themes were refined by iteratively comparing similarities and differences within groups, and across data sources. Because of difficulty in focus group recruitment and no feedback from posted transcripts, it was impossible to further confirm the accuracy of our interpretations.

Findings

Analysis identified 5 over-arching themes around perceptions of the impact of urban change: (i) space, (ii) community interactions, (iii) personal and road safety, (iv) health and physical activity, and, finally (v) ‘unresolved issues.’ Overlap existed between these themes and we have attempted to unpack pre- and post-intervention experiences according to these dimensions, concentrating first on the home zone and then the cycle-walkway.

Participants were generally proud of living in The Dings, including before works started. Many had lived there for a long time and some demonstrated a robust sense of attachment.

“It'll always be the same, it's got too much history of people always living here” (female, F, 9/05)

“I love living in the Dings, every minute … cos I was born here!” (older F, 5/06)

Home zone

Shared space—aesthetics and ‘liveability’

The original living space had a drab, grey feel and was described by participants as ‘troubled’ and a ‘bit of a battle zone.’ Despite attachment to the area, community members felt that their immediate space was blighted by burglaries and excessive commuter parking. The neighbourhood was not stimulating enough to keep youngsters out of trouble and residents felt underserved by the authorities.

“Yes, (the neighbourhood) does have a darkness about it” (male, M, 3/04)

“Yes, not so good things to do with the people and the surroundings” (F, 3/04)

“We don't know what the council is doing” (F, 3/04)

Residents expressed optimism about anticipated aesthetic improvement.

“It has to be made … visually attractive” (M, 3/04)

“Yes it will change the environment … make it more pleasant” (F, 3/04)

Ownership of neighbourhood space was central to discussions. Preoccupations unfolded about small areas of space that held personal significance for residents. People often focused on the immediate locality of their house and perceptions of the impact of change were paramount.

“I'll be particularly affected by the cycle track cos that's alongside where I live … And you … by the home zone, with whatever they decide to do on that corner…” (F, 3/04)

Despite considerable disruption, mainly via dusty and noisy building works, residents indicated that, overall, the creation of the home zone had been worthwhile. They were very complimentary about aesthetic improvement and the brighter atmosphere, brought about by use of high quality building materials and new lighting.

“It's not just the lighting. It reflects better off the lighter surfaces” (F, 4/06)

“I reckon it was well worth-it. When you come out your house now, you look at it and you think ‘Gosh, this is lovely, isn't it?’” (F, 5/06)

Shared space—continued dominance of cars

One of the key strategies behind home zones is to open up street space for communal use and reduce car dominance. However, for most participants, the car was given high status before, during and after modifications. The key issue was parking rather than fear of accidents. Lack of sufficient parking and use of the neighbourhood for commuter parking, due to its proximity to the city's main train station, dominated conversations throughout modifications.

“You can forget about finding a parking space when you come home …” (F, 3/04)

“I know it's mean, but we need to worry about our own area first … Why should it be in our streets?” (F, 3/04)

“Without the full package, it's on a wing and a prayer really … we'll get other cars hit … Also I like to be near my car, see… (M)” “Well, we all do” (F, 4/06)

People fiercely defended the ‘right’ to park their car directly outside their home. This act represented a practical safeguard against their car being vandalised, but also seemed to denote prized ownership of space and possessions. For many, the territory of the home space, and perhaps personal identity, extended to the street.

“I don't want to leave my car where it's out of sight” (F, 3/04)

A controlled residents' parking zone, extensively discussed during planning, had been shelved by the council at study-end due to highway legislation. This was disappointing for residents and often fuelled contentious debates. The general consensus was that parking solutions, such as echeloned bays, had not made much difference.

“The parking's worse now … You can't park outside your houses any more” (F, 5/06)

Community interaction

Wording engraved in home zone artwork, created via input from local residents, described the Dings as a ‘village in the city.’ Researchers observed a closely-knit community, with a communicative dynamic, before, during and after the process. The Dings community association registered itself as a limited company in 2004 and held meetings approximately bi-monthly. They were well-organised and attended by a core of residents, although rarely from minority ethnicities. Meetings were chaired by the owner of the social club, who appeared popular and to command a high level of respect. It was a forum where strength of community spirit was demonstrated and residents did not seem afraid to speak their minds. They had good links with local community-workers and councillors, and actions were implemented to try to improve local concerns.

“I think we have a good community. We've won ‘best neighbourhood watch of the year’ in the past” (M, 3/04)

Cynicism existed towards a minority of neighbours who were considered unacceptably uncaring of their environment. Culprits were usually social housing tenants, labelled ‘problem’ residents.

The council keeps putting in … families from hell, which is all wrong … It('s) hard on the people who're living here … They think it's a good thing mixing the bad with the good, but it doesn't work (M, 4/06)

Neglected properties, children's anti-social behaviour and unsightly rubbish-dumping around gardens were unpopular but common occurrences.

“But you wouldn't be able to fix that with red cones anyway…” (F, 4/06)

Younger and newer residents seemed more positive about the area's neighbourly feel.

“The only place I can compare [The Dings] to is Totterdown and it's just so much calmer … the neighbours are friendlier” (F, 5/06)

In contrast, some older females described a marked loss of community spirit. This was interpreted as a reflection upon wider societal changes, accrued over a much longer timescale.

“There's none [community spirit], not any more. People helped each other, didn't they Pat? … Youngsters that have come (aren't) used to doing things like that” [older F, 5/06, referring to running neighbourly errands]

Some referred to community consultation as having strengthened bonds. Involvement in decision-making, particularly with the home zone, was clearly appreciated.

“I don't think anything else could've been done” (F, 7/05)

“We've all pulled together, haven't we … whereas we never did before” (M, 4/06)

“They let us have our say” (F, 4/06)

The consultation process may have ultimately enhanced an existing sense of community spirit and brought face-to-face contact with authorities. However, there was no evidence from these focus groups that the physical home zone itself had either helped to build bridges with neighbours considered to be anti-social, or positively affected adult community interaction and street-life.

“I tell you what I don't like … the people in Averton Road… that throws everything … in the gardens … dirty baby nappies … That bothers me … The state of (that house) … yeuk!” (F, 5/06)

Personal safety, crime, and anti-social behaviour

Despite aesthetic improvement and positive experiences of community consultation, there were caveats rooted in fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. As with the omnipresent car, property vandalism, car crime, youngsters' threatening public behaviour and fear of attack seemed to compete against broader enjoyment of the space.

“There are also a lot of problems that affect me, like noise, harassment from children, the rubbish, the environment … it's not very nice” (F, 3/04)

“This neighbourhood does have a dodgy element about it” (M, 3/04)

There were fears that certain home zone proposals might aggravate the situation. For example, there was resistance to street furniture, intended to exemplify the spirit of ‘shared space,’ being placed directly outside the house.

“You'll get a congregation of youths sitting (on the benches) … We won't get the neighbours” (F, 9/05)

Over time, there were a few muted reports of improvement, although the local authority had recently issued some anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs).

“I don't really think the home zone (has stopped the kids from coming down here) … I just think we had the ASBOs come out … and when the summer ended, they don't want to hang around the streets” (F, 7/05)

“It has changed … I don't think there's so much trouble as there used to be…” (M, 4/06)

Most residents described a residual undercurrent of concern. Others, particularly older females, felt that things had not dramatically changed and that going out at night was out of the question.

“I don't like the drugs … You can't tell off (the kids), cos all they'll tell you to is ‘F off’ and then chuck stones at you” (older F, 5/06)

Road safety was also discussed. The area had suffered from access problems for emergency vehicles and residents reported traffic danger. Traffic-calming measures brought mixed reports. Some residents felt a sense of reassurance, but others noticed little change.

“There's just that little feeling that you're less likely to get run over because it's a home zone…” (M, 4/06)

“Not many people have slowed down actually” (F, 5/06)

Pre-works, one particular road had obtained a reputation of being a ‘rat-run,’ where motorists use residential side streets as a shortcut to avoid heavy traffic. At study-end, it had not been home-zoned, because of depleted funding. Lack of accompanying speed signage was another incomprehensible and worrying oversight for the community.

“There's no speed restrictions so they feel they're entitled to whoosh up … A good start would be ‘please slow down’ or ‘15mph advisory speed limit’ … (The) bureaucracy to get these signs through!” (M, 4/06)

Health and physical activity

Despite attempts to elicit views about keeping active and getting out and about locally, few participants framed physical activity as a priority in their lives. Healthful living seemed to be conceptualised in other ways such as degree of environmental safety, noise pollution and access to light.

“I'll lose the light in the deepest part of winter … that'll affect me as far as my health goes” (F, 3/04)

“They left (us) with … lead pipes … Water to still come in lead pipes? No, we know it's wrong but ‘it is about health.’ Oo sorry, yes!” (sarcastically, F, 5/06)

At follow-up, most participants did not think their level of physical activity had increased as a result of the home zone installation.

“Nah, still the same amount of walking, isn't it? … Health-wise, … I don't think that it's made (any difference) … not to me.” (F, 5/06)

Nonetheless, two design features did seem to contribute to isolated reports of individuals' lifestyle physical activity. First, new planters afforded gardening opportunities. They were avidly taken up by one resident, who already tended her own, private garden.

“I'm out there weeding and putting the plants in. I've become more active… race round to get everything done, so I can get out there.” (F, 4/06)

Second, residents tried to keep the roads clean, albeit unwelcome activity, as they reminisced about street-sweepers that used to service the area.

“Like an idiot, Barb goes out picking (it) up” (F). “Yeah, I do … because I'm going be as bad as them if I leaves it” [referring to social housing tenants' discarded rubbish] (2nd F, 5/06)

Importantly, inhabitants tended to agree that neighbourhood children played out more.

“You see 'em playing football more in the street now” (F, 4/06)

“They think it's a playground now, you see” (F, 4/06)

This observation was accompanied by a general sense of disapproval. Street play often distressed residents, through noise, or annoyed them, for fear of damage to their car or home (e.g. window breakage). Some framed their displeasure in light of the available neighbourhood play-park, which was considered a more appropriate space.

“The children don't seem to have an awareness of other people's needs—just sit quietly in their living room … If they do kick a ball around, (why not) in a road where there aren't cars that could get damaged?” (M, 4/06)

“You never got kids playing in the street … now they've got all this going for ‘em, why aren't they using (the park)?” (F, 5/06).

Indeed, quite a heated debate ensued during one of the follow-up groups around degrees of parental discipline and control over children’s activity.

Cycle-walkway

New space

Pre-intervention, the cycle-walkway corridor was dead space, overgrown and impassable, and the community exhibited low ownership of it. Residents voiced that it would belong to ‘others’ when converted.

“With the new development, I think it will get used, maybe not by everybody who lives here” (F, 3/04)

In essence, these attitudes prevailed, with no evidence of its installation contributing to community spirit or neighbourly interactions. This was perhaps enhanced by a lesser sense of community consultation about the cycle-walkway.

“We didn't have the same sort of process (as with) the home zone, which was very thorough … It (was) the normal council planning application … through a letter” (F, 7/05)

Safety

There was appreciation of the good intentions behind the construction of the cycle-walkway. However, it highlighted even greater concerns about safety and crime to those expressed about the residential area. Many residents were sceptical of losing the protection that the land offered when overgrown. There was particular resistance from people whose homes backed onto the track.

“It'll attract the wrong sort of people… It'll just be a breeding ground for problems” (M, 3/04)

“It'll be a quick escape route … for anybody up to no good” (F, 3/04)

A few residents took assertive stances to overcoming anticipated problems.

“We want to make the track an asset to the area. That means nipping any problems in the bud … supervision, lighting, feeling that it's a maintained public highway” (M, 3/04)

Some community requests came to fruition. Most considered the installed lighting adequate. However, a key reason for not using the new amenity was still fear of personal attack. The first author of this study reported feeling apprehensive when alone there and it still represented an isolated, ‘no-go’ area for some.

“It's all drug dealers under the arch, for a start. (It's) not safe. I wouldn't use it. They got trees overgrowing and people hide in trees” (older F, 5/06)

“I probably wouldn't walk it, cos that way you do feel more vulnerable …” (younger F user, already a cyclist, 5/06)

That said, a small number of individuals reported using the space at follow-up, particularly with company. Most relished the prospect of a time when more users would give the route a busier, safer feel.

Compared to pre-intervention beliefs, local usage of the cycle-walkway seemed to be marginally higher than anticipated, if sometimes sporadic.

“I can get (my toddler) to his nursery in Ridlington, with only crossing 2 small roads. I get (him) on his bike … (or) our roller skates. It's a nice, straight path and it's great to have it” (F, 4/06).

“I use it every day. Two or three times a day, I walk the dog” (F, 4/06, existing dog-owner).

Conversely, some residents had not ventured to its end.

“I think a lot of them do use the cycle path … up to wherever it goes … cos I don't know where it goes!” (older F, 5/06)

Three clear issues compromised greater usage. Firstly, the on-going, perceived lack of safety, as discussed. Secondly, dog excrement, litter and discarded drug paraphernalia.

“(It's still) a dumping ground … Oh, it's lovely to have (it), don't get me wrong … But there's no dog bins there” (F, 4/06).

Thirdly, at our last data collection, the route still represented a ‘road to nowhere.’ Although the cycle-walkway offered a leisure route towards Bath, it did not yet fully connect through to the station, so was not perceived to provide easier routes to the city centre or other useful destinations such as workplaces or shopping areas. Nonetheless, residents exhibited conservative optimism for the future, suggesting time would tell.

“I think with the better connections and more people around … it's gonna develop” (F, 5/06).

Unresolved issues

An interesting, recurring aspect was issues which residents felt remained unaddressed, or local neighbourhood features with a problematic status. These unfulfilled needs implied further social or physical intervention to enhance neighbourhood liveability. Inadequate parking solutions and home zone speed limits have already been highlighted. However, the area still suffered from a poor bus service and relative isolation from amenities. Transport modes had not perceptibly altered.

“You cannot get out of the district, unless you go out by taxi. You got no chance.” (F, 5/06)

Another notable shortfall was a food store within acceptable walking distance. The nearest large supermarkets were reported as being 3–4 miles away.

“I said that ages ago, they needs to get more shops around here” (F, 5/06).

“The reception area is gonna be a corner shop, which this place sorely, sorely needs” [referring to the new housing complex sales office, since converted into a private dental care operation] (F, 5/06).

Table 2 presents other, remaining socio-environmental challenges that were discussed.

Table 2

Unresolved issues—other socio-environmental issues identified by residents.

Local feature or context discussed	Description	Quotes	Interpretive comments
‘The lane’	Local authority-owned lane, adjacent to home zone	“It looks really unsightly” (F, 4/06)“There's asbestos piled up at one end … No matter how the existing roads are improved upon … unless the state of the lane is remedied…” (M, 4/06)	Need for community consultation to be followed up by real joined-up policy & action from local administrations
Social integration with inhabitants of new-build housing complex	New residents had started moving in. Many were tenants of buy-to-let landlords, or wealthier young professionals wanting a base near the railway station	Negative “We’ve got houses which are worth about £100,000. On their side of the road, they’re £300,000, those townhouses! … That tells you a lot” (M, 4/06)“They've only gotta walk over the bridge & they’ve got … (the big chain pub) & cafes … upmarket type(s) of place(s) for them to go really (F, 4/06)Positive“I think there's a positive thing … it'll enhance the area” (M, 3/04)“I’m glad I’m gonna have opposite neighbours … So long as there’s people around!” (F, 3/05)“We’ve got potential for a wider social mix down here … the very well-off (and) the original people from the Dings … Of course it’s a good thing!” (M, 4/06)	Sense that new neighbours' lifestyles were disparate to their own, challenging social integration. Community possibly grappling with its identity & retention of historical roots.Some optimism about building bridges with new-comers & benefits of an extended, socially mixed community. Sense of protection from more people being ‘out & about’ locally, particularly as area continues to re-establish.
Community policing	Perception of inadequate local police presence & powers	“It’s a waste of time … you might as well talk to that wall” (M, 3/04)	Reference to better service in years past & no perceptible improvement over period of study.
		“Current community policeman’s seen as useless…” (M, 3/05)
		“He used to … don’t really come round now” (F, 5/06)
Lack of community opportunities for structured exercise	Absent pre- & post-home zone & cycle-walkway (unplanned)	“Somewhere you could drop in & say ‘I’d like to take up cycling, do you know where I could get a cheap bike?’ And so on…” (M, 4/06)	Such traditional approaches might be supported, particularly with a bottom-up approach.
		“We got none” (F, 5/06) [referring to facilities]

In the last two focus groups, we asked participants to put forward other ideas for increasing local people's levels of physical activity. A nominal group technique task revealed three top suggestions: access to free or affordable neighbourhood gym/exercise classes (26 votes); less crime/anti-social behaviour and feeling safer (21 votes); and active maintenance of the home zone, e.g. group window-cleaning, gardening sessions and street-sweeping (17 votes). One response to this was:

“There isn't an easy answer, because everybody's so individual. It doesn't matter what you provide, there'll be people who won't join in…” (F, 4/06)

Discussion

This study provides insight into the impact of an urban regeneration project on perceptions of quality of life, social interaction and self-reported physical activity of its residents. As a ‘natural experiment,’ it is one of the few reported studies of environmental modifications undertaken within a setting of high deprivation and social challenge. Through inductive, iterative analysis, participant discussions fell into five main themes: space, community interaction, safety, health and physical activity, and ‘unresolved issues.’

The home zone and cycle-walkway construction appeared to influence many spheres of local community life and, overall, contributed to people feeling better about their direct surroundings. However, this was a gradual process that mirrored the build and took time to translate into positive feedback. There was little evidence that the home zone itself influenced adult physical activity habits at a community level. However, some individuals seemed encouraged to be outdoors more, which probably involved more incidental activity, and children used the new space for active play. Some adults and children were using the cycle path. Residents also voiced the need for affordable, structured community exercise opportunities that could capitalise on local venues and existing neighbourly networks. So, some desire to be more active was in evidence.

A central and important finding of this work was the existence of deeply rooted and often polarised attitudes to cars, and their dominance in people's lives and personal territories. To car-owners, the vehicle, with its parking space outside the home, was a prized possession and almost afforded the status of a family member. Yet, paradoxically, other neighbours' or outsiders' cars were viewed as enemies. Increases in car availability, and dependence and reliance in the past three decades, have been directly related to annual reductions in walking per person (Department for Transport, 2010; Stradling, 2003). These findings demonstrate the centrality of the car as a status symbol and indicate the difficulties of establishing increased walking as a health priority. As vehicle-centred issues were much more predominant in residents' minds, strategies to increase activity may need to challenge these issues first. Careful thought and planning is undoubtedly necessary for active travel policies, such as travel-to-work schemes, that are called for in The Marmot Review (2010).

Degree of acceptability of shared space was also an important finding. Its planned introduction elicited strong reactions, and it did create challenges for some residents. Some felt threatened by closer proximity to young people. A fine line seemed to exist between anti-social behaviour and normal, healthy play such as children ‘messing around’ along the cycle-walkway or street football. It is questionable whether people will get ‘out and about’ locally unless such perceptions are more effectively tackled. Echoing our findings, Gill (2005) described home zones as ‘stages’ for debate about the tensions brought about by modern, urban living. He also referred to car-dependence, social values, relationships between local government and residents, balance between public and private space, individual versus collective well-being, and the meaning of ‘safety’ and ‘community.’ These home zone experiences therefore resonate with broader, socio-geographic and health policy literatures. They underline the notorious difficulty of defining ‘home,’ ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘community,’ and caution against making assumptions about their nature for people (Moon, 1990). Notions of time and space might be all the more pertinent for this ‘community’ in evident metamorphosis. Further, Gill (2005) reported mixed attitudes about young people, especially about street-play: he proposed a shared vision of the street as a domain where minor, adverse events – upsets, injuries, conflicts – are seen as evidence of healthy, human activity. Nurturing such cultural norms could be viewed as a substantial public health challenge.

Dings residents had a clear picture of what constituted a liveable neighbourhood and readily identified missing links in the chain of community improvement. Most of these shortcomings implied greater commitment and sustained responsibility from local authorities. Some could be described as ‘finishing touches’ to the construction projects. However, many reflected broader social needs and displayed an undercurrent of dissatisfaction. There were requests for on-going investment such as better community policing, upkeep of council property, speed limit signage, comprehensive parking measures and public transport links. These suggestions were similar to those uncovered by Michael et al. (2006) who explored how neighbourhood design could encourage active ageing. They identified neighbourhood attractiveness, pedestrian and traffic infrastructure, and local shopping, services and transport as important factors. Although the Dings redevelopment was an expensive construction project that changed the aesthetics and ‘feel’ of the local streets, the home zone itself only addressed some of these deeper needs.

Importantly, the physical interventions in this study were not conceived by planners as a solution to the community’s broader social challenges, although this distinction was not always so clear-cut for residents. Rather, professional stakeholders aimed to raise the quality of the environment, and bring a greater sense of neighbourhood pride and community ownership. The home zone achieved this to some extent, although pride in the locality was already evident among many residents at outset. Focus group participants generally appeared to have a strong sense of neighbourhood belonging, that manifested itself through attending meetings and expressions of concern for the area and its future. This committed core, however, also viewed other sectors of the local community as uninvolved, or transient outsiders, with potential to disrupt and devalue the harmony of the area. This remained throughout constructions.

There was less evidence of community ownership of the cycle-walkway than the home zone, possibly due to its more peripheral geographical position and inherent sense of isolation. This is perhaps not surprising given that perceived safety of cycle routes influences their use (Heinen et al., 2010; Lawlor et al., 2003). Burgoyne et al.'s (2007) focus group work explored low usage of new public walking routes. They found local residents unreceptive, as they too felt preoccupied with more fundamental socio-environmental issues. Importantly, a need for connectedness also compromised motivation for using the cycle-walkway: many Dings residents simply lacked a purpose to use it. With restricted interest in, or time for, physically active leisure pursuits, such routes need to offer some functionality for their potential users, whether as an ‘end-point,’ or with ‘staging posts.’ In line with current thinking in physical activity research and policy, which warns against the assumption that ‘if you build, they come,’ planners should not underestimate the extent of the social and health-related impact they can make, particularly if communities are left with ‘unresolved issues.’

There were several limitations to our work. Our findings were undoubtedly influenced by adopting a focus group approach which risks excluding certain sub-populations (Basch, 1987), and uncovers little about people who are approached but decline (Parker and Tritter, 2006). Male, non-white-British and younger adults were under-represented. Participant recruitment in settings of mixed ethnicity and high deprivation tends to be challenging (Bhopal, 1997; Parry et al., 2001; Steptoe and Feldman, 2001). We received the views of confident, community-conscious residents, and the voices of more isolated, less engaged individuals were not captured, such as less-established ethnic groups or the reported ‘problem’ families. Residents may also have been suffering a type of burn-out, particularly towards the end of our evaluation. They had received intense interest from many professionals, including multiple requests to complete questionnaires and attend meetings, all of which demanded time and interest in proceedings. Although we made repeated efforts to recruit, and were a regular presence in the neighbourhood, delivery of recruitment strategies in other languages may also have enhanced participation.

The intervention's dual features made it impossible to definitively disentangle home zone and cycle path effects. However, the two developments were seen as relatively separate entities by residents. In addition, constructions took place in the wider context of other proximal regeneration, which provided separate issues. The line remained blurred over when the environmental intervention could be termed finished, or arguably ‘bounded.’ As researchers left the setting, the community faced the potential build of a 10,000-seat entertainment arena nearby and the threatened closure of the social club, both liable to dramatically affect community life. At the time of writing, and further to its sale, the social club had been demolished, and brand-new flats had taken its place. The arena plans had been abandoned. The developers of the adjacent residential and commercial blocks went into administration (February 2009), so works on stopped for a while. They had restarted, under new management, but it was still unclear if and when original plans would ultimately be effected.

The Dings experience stressed the slow speed and complexity of physical and social process of change surrounding urban intervention, even in a very small geographical space. Appreciation that we need interventions that both compensate for time-lag, and address different attitudes to keeping active, is likely to be fundamental to the realities we face around increasing community levels of physical activity. The Dings experience endorses the need for comprehensive and sustainable packages of measures to bring about impactful health improvement, including more active lifestyles (Huang and Glass, 2008; Jones et al., 2007; Sparling et al., 2000; Yach et al., 2005).

Despite challenges, we would encourage researchers to pursue opportunistic interventions and work with local planners and stakeholders to identify and evaluate built environmental interventions. Despite uncovering only limited increases in collective quality of life, and accumulated physical activity, following the Dings natural experiment, we recommend a strong need to exercise caution in interpreting that this intervention ‘did’ or ‘did not’ work. The need for long-term follow-up is stark, because communities need time to evolve. As even small changes in public health-related behaviour can be beneficial, we encourage funders, planners and policy-makers to embrace the time needed for physical interventions to bed down into wider social and physical contexts. A further consideration is the impact of upgrading communities and area attractiveness on property prices and urban ‘gentrification’ (Doucet, 2009; Vigdor et al., 2002). This seems possible on account of the regeneration enveloping the Dings. Broad thinking, holistic, socio-environmental solutions and patience may be further ingredients in a public health recipe for optimal quality of life and active living.

Conclusion

Focus group findings from a natural experiment suggested that a well-executed, community-based environmental intervention improved neighbourhood aesthetics. A home zone conversion and cycle-walkway scheme were generally viewed positively, although differences in adequacy of consultation mattered to residents. A few individuals were encouraged to spend more time outdoors, particularly maintaining the aesthetic of home zone shared space. However no substantial changes in physical activity, or increases in active travel, were reported at community population level. Car-focused behaviour and ownership remained dominant, and safety-related concerns limited behavioural choices, especially concerning cycle-walkway usage. Residents emphasised the continued need for adequate provision of convenient services, local food outlets and linked-up public transport infrastructure. Communities need time to adapt and further longitudinal evaluation is recommended. Highly localised infrastructural intervention may be important in multi-layered, whole-community solutions towards optimal quality of neighbourhood life and active living. However, in isolation, and at least in the short term, they may have limited capacity for substantial change.