Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance: Part 1, Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Framework

Hemphill, Lesley, Berry, Jim, McGreal, Stanley·2004·Urban Studies
DOI 10.1080/0042098042000194089
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper evaluates the use of indicators as a means of measuring the performance of regeneration against sustainability criteria. The merits of sustainability indicators are explored with a discussion of the indicator selection process and the derivation of a points scoring framework. The extent to which the sustainability performance of regeneration projects can be evaluated and subsequently benchmarked is examined. Conclusions are drawn on the robustness of the indicators selected, the versatility of the points scoring framework in capturing the sustainability performance of regeneration projects and the potential to identify 'best' practice. The application of the model and associated indicators is the subject of the subsequent paper in this journal issue.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0042098042000194089

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. Audit Commission, 1989, Urban Regeneration and Economic Development: The Local Government Dimension
  2. Audit Commission, 2002, Suggested Key Indicators for Economic Regeneration
  3. Biehl, D., 1986, The Contribution of Infrastructure to Regional Development
  4. Blackhall, J.C., 1993, The performance of simplified planning zones. Working Paper 30
  5. Bristow, H., 1999, Urban Environment Today, 62, 13
  6. Brownhill, D., 2002, A Sustainability Checklist for Developments: A Common Frameworkfor Developers and Local Authorities
  7. 10.1108/EUM0000000003311 · doi:10.1108/eum0000000003311
  8. Carley, M., 1980, Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis
  9. Carley, M., 1981, Social Measurement and Social Indicators
  10. Chambers, N., 2000, Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability
  11. Cheshire, P. (1987) Urban policy: art not science ? in: B. Robson (Ed.) Managing the City: The Aims and Impacts of Urban Policy, pp. 22-39. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble. · doi:10.4324/9781315178264-3
  12. 10.1068/a261297 · doi:10.1068/a261297
  13. Coombes, M.G., 1992, Developing Indicators to Assess the Potential for Urban Regeneration
  14. Cullingworth, J.B., 1994, Town and Country PLanning in Britain
  15. Detr (Department Of The Environment, Transport And The Regions), 1998, Sustainable Regeneration Good Practice Guide
  16. Detr, 1998, Planning for the Communities of the Future
  17. Detr, 1998, Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice
  18. Detr, 1998, Sustainability Counts
  19. Detr, 1998, Index of Local Deprivation: A Summary of Results
  20. Detr, 1998, The Future of Regional Planning Guidance
  21. Detr, 1999, Sustainable Development Strategy for the UK: A Better Quality of Life
  22. Detr, 1999, Revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing-Public Consultation Draft
  23. Detr, 1999, Revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport-Public Consultation Draft
  24. Detr, 2000, Local Quality of Life Counts
  25. Detr, 2000, Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales-Part 1 and 2
  26. Doe (Department Of The Environment), 1987, An Evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment
  27. DOE, 1988, An Evaluation of the Urban Development Grant Programme. Report prepared by the Public Sector Management Research Unit
  28. Dti (Department Of Trade And Industry), 1998, Regional Competitiveness Indicators: A Consultation Paper
  29. European Commission Dgxi, 1996, European Sustainable Cities. Expert Group on the Urban Environment
  30. 10.1068/a231393 · doi:10.1068/a231393
  31. Hara, L.F., 1976, Finance, 5, 6
  32. Hardi, P., 1997, Sustainable Development Principles in Practice
  33. 10.2307/974636 · doi:10.2307/974636
  34. Hatry, H.P., 1977, How Effective Are Your Community Services? Procedures for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Municipal Services
  35. 10.1080/09599910210155491 · doi:10.1080/09599910210155491
  36. Hodge, R.A. and Hardi, P. (1997) The need for guidelines: the rationale underlying the Bellagio principles for assessment, in: P. Hardy and T. Zdan (Eds) Sustainable Development Principles in Practice, pp. 7-20. Winnipeg : The International Institute for Sustainable Development .
  37. 10.1017/CBO9780511518164 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511518164
  38. Johnston, B., 1998, Planning, 9
  39. Kaplan, A., 1964, The Conduct of Enquiry
  40. 10.3828/tpr.49.1.w231p62x54707246 · doi:10.3828/tpr.49.1.w231p62x54707246
  41. Landry, C., 1994, Viability and Vitality
  42. Lawless, P., 1989, Britain's Inner Cities
  43. 10.3828/tpr.67.1.98h00465j93w0386 · doi:10.3828/tpr.67.1.98h00465j93w0386
  44. Lpac (London Planning Advisory Commitiee), 2000, News Release 085-Better Designed, Higher Density Housing Could be the Answer
  45. 10.1080/01944369608975684 · DOI · Paper page
  46. McGreal, W.S., 2002, Studies, 39, 1819
  47. 10.1080/02697459550036522 · doi:10.1080/02697459550036522
  48. Odpm (Office Of The Deputy Prime Minister), 2002, Best Value Performance Indicators 2002/2003
  49. Odpm, 2003, Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future
  50. Oecd (Organisation For Economic Co-Opfr-Ation And Development), 2000, Urban Renaissance: Belfast's Lessons for Policy and Partnership
  51. Pacec (Pa Cambridge Economic Consultants Ltd), 1987, An Evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment. DOE Inner Cities Research Programme
  52. Pacec, 1990, Indicators of Comparative Regional Local Economic Performance
  53. 10.1177/030913258200600402 · DOI
  54. Parkinson, M., 1997, Urban Policy in Britain: Project on National Urban Policies in the European Union
  55. Ravftz, J., 1996, Town and Country Planning, 152
  56. Robson, B., 1994, Assessing The Impact of Urban Policy
  57. Stanners, D., 1995, Europe's Environment: The Dobris Assessment
  58. Taig, T., 2002, Dealing with Differences of Expert Opinion. TTAC Ltd
  59. Tyler, P., 2001, Turning our urban areas around-do area based initiatives work? A review of the evidence base and Lessons for future policy
  60. Uk Parliament, 2003, The Effectiveness of Government Regeneration Initiatives. Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions, Seventh Report
  61. Wackernagel, M., 1996, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth
  62. Wced (World Commission On Economic Development), 1987, Our Common Future
  63. Wong, C. (1995) Developing quantitative indicators for urban and regional policy analysis, in: R. Hambleton and H. Thomas (Eds) Urban Policy Evaluation: Challenge and Change, pp. 111-122. London : Paul Chapman Publishing.
  64. 10.3828/tpr.71.2.tu716xu205jl430t · doi:10.3828/tpr.71.2.tu716xu205jl430t

Cited by

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Hemphill, L., Berry, J., & McGreal, S.
Venue
Urban Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-04
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
725-755
ISSN
  • 0042-0980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-063X
DOI
10.1080/0042098042000194089
OpenAlex
W2107422070
Cited by
203
References
0
FWCI
17.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance: Part 1, Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0042098042000194089
The paper
Hemphill, L., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2004). An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance: Part 1, Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Framework. Urban Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000194089

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.