IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p2082-d1350030.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai

Author

Listed:
  • Han Wang

    (College of Fashion and Design, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yueli Xu

    (Department of Urban Planning and Design, Design School, Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Residential heritage neighborhoods in China are experiencing a transformation from large-scale demolishment, which is associated with relocating residents, to small-scale neighborhood regeneration, and distinctive models of participatory regeneration are emerging. Participatory regeneration is increasingly considered to be an effective way to achieve multiple goals in urban development; however, little research has investigated the impacts of participatory regeneration on achieving neighborhood-based collaborative governance. This study aims to explore which mechanisms associated with participatory regeneration facilitate or constrain neighborhood-based collaborative governance, using case studies in Shanghai. Based on the investigation of three nuanced pathways in participatory regeneration, this study compares four dimensions associated with participatory regeneration (i.e., participatory decision-making, inclusion, collective problem-solving, and power-sharing) and explores key mechanisms that are applicable for achieving collaborative governance in different scenarios, aiming to enhance social development and social sustainability in future. The findings indicate that although grassroots government played vital roles in participatory heritage neighborhood regeneration through financial support and supervision strategies, facilitating mechanisms could still be observed for achieving collaborative governance. Furthermore, this study provides suggestions for planners in building collaborative governance in other developing areas which are experiencing rapid urbanization with strong state interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Han Wang & Yueli Xu, 2024. "Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2082-:d:1350030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2082/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2082/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberto Falanga, 2020. "Formulating the success of citizen participation in urban regeneration: Insights and perplexities from Lisbon," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 477-499, October.
    2. Bharati Garg & Rohit Barach, 2021. "Collaborative governance for urban sustainability: implementing solar cities," Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 236-257, October.
    3. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    4. Mike Raco & Rob Imrie, 2000. "Governmentality and Rights and Responsibilities in Urban Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(12), pages 2187-2204, December.
    5. Zixuan Zhang & Junchen Pan & Yun Qian, 2023. "Collaborative Governance for Participatory Regeneration Practices in Old Residential Communities within the Chinese Context: Cases from Beijing," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andrew M. Wood, 2004. "Domesticating Urban Theory? US Concepts, British Cities and the Limits of Cross-national Applications," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(11), pages 2103-2118, October.
    2. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    3. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    4. Felipe Teixeira Dias & Ana Regina de Aguiar Dutra & Anelise Leal Vieira Cubas & Matheus Frederico Ferreira Henckmaier & Max Courval & José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, 2023. "Sustainable development with environmental, social and governance: Strategies for urban sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 528-539, February.
    5. Kathryn Furlong, 2012. "Good Water Governance without Good Urban Governance? Regulation, Service Delivery Models, and Local Government," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(11), pages 2721-2741, November.
    6. Harriet Bulkeley & Pauline M McGuirk & Robyn Dowling, 2016. "Making a smart city for the smart grid? The urban material politics of actualising smart electricity networks," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(9), pages 1709-1726, September.
    7. Janmaat, Johannus A., 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement in Land Development Decisions: A Waste of Effort?," MPRA Paper 6147, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Falanga, Roberto & Nunes, Mafalda Corrêa, 2021. "Tackling urban disparities through participatory culture-led urban regeneration. Insights from Lisbon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    9. Vilma Atkociuniene & Sigitas Vaitkevicius & Egle Stareike, 2021. "Development of Sustainable Partnership Organizational Mechanism (POM): Case of Local Action Groups (LAG)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Mary Dengler, 2008. "Finding the Political ‘Sweet Spot’: Sectional Interests, Consensus Power, and the Everglades Restudy (1992–2000)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(4), pages 766-784, April.
    11. S. Franceschini & G. Marletto, 2017. "The dynamics of social capital during public participation: new knowledge from an on-going monitoring," Working Paper CRENoS 201706, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    12. John Clayton & Catherine Donovan & Jacqui Merchant, 2016. "Distancing and limited resourcefulness: Third sector service provision under austerity localism in the north east of England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(4), pages 723-740, March.
    13. Canelas, Patricia & Noring, Luise, 2022. "Governmentalities of land value capture in urban redevelopment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    14. William Sites, 2012. "God from the Machine? Urban Movements Meet Machine Politics in Neoliberal Chicago," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(11), pages 2574-2590, November.
    15. McDonald, Sara L. & Rigling-Gallagher, Deborah, 2015. "Participant perceptions of consensus-based, marine mammal take reduction planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 216-226.
    16. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    17. Venda Louise Pollock & Joanne Sharp, 2012. "Real Participation or the Tyranny of Participatory Practice? Public Art and Community Involvement in the Regeneration of the Raploch, Scotland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(14), pages 3063-3079, November.
    18. Anita Kokx & Ronald van Kempen, 2009. "Joining Forces in Urban Restructuring: Dealing with Collaborative Ideals and Role Conflicts in Breda, the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(5), pages 1234-1250, May.
    19. Candace K May, 2015. "Politics of visibility: competing for legitimacy in North Carolina fisheries governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1484-1500, December.
    20. Rob Tulder & M. May Seitanidi & Andrew Crane & Stephen Brammer, 2016. "Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 1-17, April.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2082-:d:1350030. 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.