IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1483-d906579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Residents’ Satisfaction Evaluation for Socially Sustainable Regeneration—The Case of Two High-Density Communities in Suzhou

Author

Listed:
  • Jinliu Chen

    (School of Science & Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK
    School of Design, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China)

  • Paola Pellegrini

    (School of Design, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China)

  • Haoqi Wang

    (Department of Architecture and Urban planning, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215123, China)

Abstract

With the 14th Five-Year Plan for Development, China is promoting people-oriented urban regeneration for residential communities built before 2000. Evaluations of quality of life (QoL) and considerations of social sustainability must play an important role in defining people-oriented regeneration projects. Residents’ satisfaction is an important indicator of QoL and is essential for achieving socially sustainable development. To contribute to the ongoing discussion about people-oriented urban regeneration, this paper studies the correlation between QoL and social sustainability, investigating residents’ perception in high-density communities through a satisfaction evaluation approach based on the QoL index. Two high-density communities in Suzhou were analyzed: Nanhuan, a high-rise, gated community in one of the first expansions of the city in the 80s; and Daoqian, a multi-story, non-gated community in the old town. Both communities have a typical urban morphology and were selected for their exemplary characteristics. The study used a mixed research method: field investigation, on-site interviews, and a survey with over 670 questionnaires conducted and analyzed. It also applied the Structural Equation Model (SEM) to explore and define the satisfaction evaluation factors. The two communities expressed concerns about different factors: in the case of the Nanhuan community, property management and spatial scenario creation were emphasized, whereas in the case of the Daoqian community, unrestricted space mobility, poor existing conditions, and the demand for various facilities and recreation spaces were most prominent. The research found that improving community environmental quality and facilities would, as one would expect, improve residents’ satisfaction in both communities. Still, our research also clearly indicated that diversified spatial activities, currently missing in both cases, and more opportunities for social interaction would enhance residents’ satisfaction. The findings of this study offer some insights regarding socially sustainable community regeneration, as well as decision-making processes and design strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinliu Chen & Paola Pellegrini & Haoqi Wang, 2022. "Comparative Residents’ Satisfaction Evaluation for Socially Sustainable Regeneration—The Case of Two High-Density Communities in Suzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1483-:d:906579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1483/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1483/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2013. "Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 598-604, May.
    2. Alden Speare, 1974. "Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 11(2), pages 173-188, May.
    3. Pengyan Wang & Xiaofei Qin & Yurui Li, 2021. "Satisfaction Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements in Northwest China: Method and Application," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Daniel W. Sacks & Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Subjective Well-Being, Income, Economic Development and Growth," NBER Working Papers 16441, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Grace Lee & Edwin Chan, 2008. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach for Assessment of Urban Renewal Proposals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 155-168, October.
    6. Ade Kearns & Phil Mason, 2013. "Defining and Measuring Displacement: Is Relocation from Restructured Neighbourhoods Always Unwelcome and Disruptive?," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 177-204, March.
    7. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    8. Qi Zhang & Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung & Edwin Hon-Wan Chan, 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-32, November.
    9. Beate Littig & Erich Griessler, 2005. "Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 65-79.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ezio Micelli & Francesco Campagnari & Luca Lazzarini & Elena Ostanel & Naomi Pedri Stocco, 2024. "They Like to Do It in Public: A Quantitative Analysis of Culture-Led Regeneration Projects in ITALY," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Jinliu Chen & Paola Pellegrini & Zhuo Yang & Haoqi Wang, 2023. "Strategies for Sustainable Urban Renewal: Community-Scale GIS-Based Analysis for Densification Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Ruoshi Zhang, 2023. "Evaluation of Emotional Attachment Characteristics of Small-Scale Urban Vitality Space Based on Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Integrating Entropy Weight Method and Gr," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, March.
    4. Jinliu Chen & Haoqi Wang & Zhuo Yang & Pengcheng Li & Geng Ma & Xiaoxin Zhao, 2023. "Comparative Spatial Vitality Evaluation of Traditional Settlements Based on SUF: Taking Anren Ancient Town’s Urban Design as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qi Zhang & Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung & Edwin Hon-Wan Chan, 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-32, November.
    2. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward & Femke De Keulenaer & Bert Van Landeghem & Georgios Kavetsos & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Well-Being Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 362-375, May.
    3. Zhang, Yinjunjie & Xu, Zhicheng Phil & Palma, Marco A., 2017. "Misclassification Errors of Subjective Well-being: A New Approach to Mapping Happiness," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258553, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Johan P. Larsson & Per Thulin, 2019. "Independent by necessity? The life satisfaction of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in 70 countries," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 921-934, December.
    5. John Holmberg & Johan Larsson, 2018. "A Sustainability Lighthouse—Supporting Transition Leadership and Conversations on Desirable Futures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Anna Sundermann & Daniel Fischer, 2019. "How Does Sustainability Become Professionally Relevant? Exploring the Role of Sustainability Conceptions in First Year Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1, September.
    7. Eckehard Rosenbaum & Biagio Ciuffo, 2017. "Sustainability via Intergenerational Transfers in a Stock-Flow-Consistent Model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 147-184, February.
    8. Tafuro, Alessandra & De Matteis, Fabio & Preite, Daniela & Costa, Antonio & Mariella, Leonardo & Treviso, Giuliana, 2019. "Social sustainability and local authorities: What is the relationship between spending commitments and social issues?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 120-132.
    9. Andrew Hodge & Sriram Shankar, 2016. "Single-Variable Threshold Effects in Ordered Response Models With an Application to Estimating the Income-Happiness Gradient," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 42-52, January.
    10. Julie L Rose, 2020. "On the value of economic growth," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 128-153, May.
    11. Hossein Farhadikhah & Keramatollah Ziari, 2021. "Social sustainability between old and new neighborhoods (case study: Tehran neighborhoods)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2596-2613, February.
    12. Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo & Andrea Ciacci & Enrico Ivaldi, 2021. "Measuring Sustainable Development by Non-aggregative Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 101-122, August.
    13. Beja Jr., Edsel, 2013. "Does economic prosperity bring about a happier society? Empirical remarks on the Easterlin Paradox debate sans Happiness Adaptation," MPRA Paper 50633, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Taozhi Zhuang & Queena K. Qian & Henk J. Visscher & Marja G. Elsinga, 2017. "Stakeholders’ Expectations in Urban Renewal Projects in China: A Key Step towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Beja Jr., Edsel, 2013. "Does economic prosperity bring about a happier society? Empirical remarks on the Easterlin Paradox debate," MPRA Paper 49446, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Duha T. Altindag & Junyue Xu, 2017. "Life Satisfaction and Preferences over Economic Growth and Institutional Quality," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 100-121, March.
    17. Kyung-Young Lee, 2021. "Relationship between Physical Environment Satisfaction, Neighborhood Satisfaction, and Quality of Life in Gyeonggi, Korea," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, June.
    18. Sue Easton & Loretta Lees & Phil Hubbard & Nicholas Tate, 2020. "Measuring and mapping displacement: The problem of quantification in the battle against gentrification," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(2), pages 286-306, February.
    19. Stefano Bartolini & Francesco Sarracino, 2021. "Happier and Sustainable. Possibilities for a post-growth society," Department of Economics University of Siena 855, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    20. Olga Stepanova & Magdalena Romanov, 2021. "Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? The Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1483-:d:906579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.