IB Geography G.5.3 Stakeholder Perspectives Notes

Urban Strategies Redistribute Benefits, Costs and Risk

1. A strategy that improves conditions for the city as a whole may still impose concentrated costs on particular social groups.
2. Perspective depends on income, tenure, location, mobility, livelihood and the length of time over which effects are judged.
3. Stakeholders also have unequal power to define the problem, supply evidence and influence which response receives funding.
4. Evaluation should therefore identify who gains, who pays, who decides and whether the pattern changes over time.

Canary Wharf Regeneration Produced Uneven Local Gains

1. Developers and investors gained from higher-value offices, housing and commercial land in a newly connected business district.
2. City and borough authorities gained employment, investment and a larger property tax base, but also faced pressure to provide transport and services.
3. Skilled commuters gained access to finance and professional employment through improved regional transport.
4. Existing residents gained some jobs and services but could face higher housing costs, displacement pressure and a mismatch between local skills and new employment.
5. Small local firms could gain customers from a larger daytime population while also facing higher rents and competition.
6. The overall regeneration may be economically successful while remaining socially uneven at neighbourhood scale.

Congestion Charging Changes Access and Costs Differently

1. Bus passengers and pedestrians may gain from less traffic, faster buses and safer or cleaner streets.
2. Drivers with good alternatives can switch mode or travel time, so the charge changes behaviour at a manageable cost.
3. Drivers without practical alternatives face a larger burden if work, disability or caring duties require a car.
4. Central businesses may gain from more reliable journeys and a better street environment but lose some drive-in customers or pay higher delivery costs.
5. Local government gains revenue and a demand-management tool but must fund enforcement and justify exemptions.
6. The policy is more equitable when public transport is affordable, exemptions are targeted and revenue improves alternatives.

Urban Green Space Creates Benefits and Opportunity Costs

1. Nearby residents can gain shade, recreation, cleaner air, drainage and improved mental health.
2. Residents in poorly served districts gain little if new parks remain concentrated in already advantaged neighbourhoods.
3. Landowners and developers lose potential building value when scarce urban land is protected from development.
4. Municipal authorities pay acquisition and maintenance costs while receiving few direct user fees.
5. Renters may benefit from a better environment but face green gentrification if rising property values increase rents.
6. The distribution of access matters more than the total area of green space when judging social equity.

Power Determines Which Priorities Become Policy

1. Developers can influence land-use decisions through ownership, finance and technical expertise.
2. Higher-income residents may have more time, information and political access to oppose unwanted development or demand improvements.
3. Informal residents and street workers may be highly affected but weakly represented because their tenure or livelihoods are not fully recognised.
4. Public consultation does not remove this imbalance if meetings are inaccessible or decisions have already been framed.
5. Participatory mapping, transparent compensation and published distributional evidence can make excluded costs more visible.
6. A fair process cannot guarantee agreement, but it should allow affected groups to shape alternatives before a final decision.

A Stakeholder Matrix Makes Evaluation Explicit

1. List each stakeholder and record the main benefit, cost, time horizon and degree of influence.
2. Separate direct effects, such as a charge or eviction, from indirect effects, such as later rent increases.
3. Distinguish city-wide efficiency from neighbourhood equity because both can be true at the same time.
4. Check whether compensation reaches the group carrying the cost rather than assuming that total gains will spread automatically.
5. The final judgement should state which priority is most defensible and which safeguard is needed for the group most at risk.