IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i6p790-d825077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Residents’ Social Profiles Influencing Their Participation in Community Micro-Regeneration Projects in China: A Case Study of Yongtai Community, Guangzhou

Author

Listed:
  • Weixuan Chen

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China)

  • Ali Cheshmehzangi

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China
    Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability (NERPS), Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739-8530, Japan)

  • Eugenio Mangi

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China)

  • Timothy Heath

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK)

  • Changdong Ye

    (College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Ling Wang

    (College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

Abstract

Urban regeneration has become one of the most effective ways to develop urban areas that have declined. Compared with other types of urban regeneration, community micro-regeneration is characterised by scattered stakeholders. Existing studies on public participation in community micro-regeneration mainly focus on revealing the interaction between different stakeholders with less attention to the main users’ social profiles in their participation process. This paper explores residents’ social profiles influencing their participation in community micro-regeneration projects in China. An evaluation framework for residents’ participation in community micro-regeneration projects is designed through literature research, the Delphi technique, and an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based on the case study of Yongtai community, Guangzhou. Relative residents’ social profiles with the data from the questionnaire and literature research are further verified by stepwise linear regression. The results show that residents’ participation is still in the stage of tokenism with high-level passive information receipt but low-level enthusiasm for interactive activities. The older (i.e., 65-years of age and above) and middle-income groups (i.e., between 3000 and 14,999 CNY/Month) are positively associated with their participation in the Yongtai community micro-regeneration project. These findings can provide references for managers to distribute social resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Weixuan Chen & Ali Cheshmehzangi & Eugenio Mangi & Timothy Heath & Changdong Ye & Ling Wang, 2022. "An Analysis of Residents’ Social Profiles Influencing Their Participation in Community Micro-Regeneration Projects in China: A Case Study of Yongtai Community, Guangzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:6:p:790-:d:825077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/6/790/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/6/790/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan Walker, 2002. "A strategy for active ageing," International Social Security Review, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 121-139.
    2. Chris Hamnett, 2020. "Is Chinese urbanisation unique?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(3), pages 690-700, February.
    3. Yang Yi & Yuanyuan Zhao & Guodong Ding & Guanglei Gao & Mingchang Shi & Yue Cao, 2016. "Effects of Urbanization on Landscape Patterns in a Mountainous Area: A Case Study in the Mentougou District, Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Tao Zhou & Yulin Zhou & Guiwen Liu, 2017. "Key Variables for Decision-Making on Urban Renewal in China: A Case Study of Chongqing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Booth, Chris & Richardson, Tim, 2001. "Placing the public in integrated transport planning," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 141-149, April.
    6. Vanessa Watson, 2014. "Co-production and collaboration in planning - The difference," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 62-76, March.
    7. Bryson, John M. & Patton, Michael Quinn & Bowman, Ruth A., 2011. "Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12, February.
    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. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    2. Tubridy, Fiadh & Lennon, Mick & Scott, Mark, 2022. "Managed retreat and coastal climate change adaptation: The environmental justice implications and value of a coproduction approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Andrew Allan & Ali Soltani & Mohammad Hamed Abdi & Melika Zarei, 2022. "Driving Forces behind Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Systematic and Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2019. "The Geography and Equity of Crowdsourced Public Participation for Active Transportation Planning," SocArXiv 9ghrn, Center for Open Science.
    5. Simeng Li & Zhimin Liu & Chao Ye, 2022. "Community Renewal under Multi-Stakeholder Co-Governance: A Case Study of Shanghai’s Inner City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Ullrich-French, Sarah & Cole, Amy N. & Montgomery, Anna K., 2016. "Evaluation development for a physical activity positive youth development program for girls," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 67-76.
    7. Yang Yi & Chen Zhang & Jinqi Zhu & Yugang Zhang & Hao Sun & Hongzhang Kang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution, Prediction and Optimization of LUCC Based on CA-Markov and InVEST Models: A Case Study of Mentougou District, Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    9. Zhou, Yulin & Lan, Feng & Zhou, Tao, 2021. "An experience-based mining approach to supporting urban renewal mode decisions under a multi-stakeholder environment in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    10. Philipp Horn & Diana Mitlin & Jhono Bennett & Beth Chitekwe-Biti & Jack Makau, 2018. "Towards citywide participatory planning: emerging community-led practices in three African cities," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 342018, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    11. Fulong Wu, 2020. "Adding new narratives to the urban imagination: An introduction to ‘New directions of urban studies in China’," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(3), pages 459-472, February.
    12. Marletto, Gerardo & Mameli, Francesca, 2012. "A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test," MPRA Paper 36433, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Federica Natalia Rosati & Luisa Moretto & Jacques Teller, 2020. "An incremental approach to service co-production: unfolding the co-evolution of the built environment and water and sanitation infrastructures," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/314020, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Yunyang Ji & Xiaoxin Guo & Shihu Zhong & Lina Wu, 2020. "Land Financialization, Uncoordinated Development of Population Urbanization and Land Urbanization, and Economic Growth: Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Doris Baumann & Willibald Ruch & Katja Margelisch & Fabian Gander & Lisa Wagner, 2020. "Character Strengths and Life Satisfaction in Later Life: an Analysis of Different Living Conditions," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(2), pages 329-347, April.
    16. Lin Li & Kaixu Zhao & Xinyu Wang & Sidong Zhao & Xingguang Liu & Weiwei Li, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Driving Mechanism of Urbanization in Small Cities: Case Study from Guangxi," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-34, March.
    17. Sayonee Majumdar & Anjan Chakrabarti, 2020. "A theory of old care: beyond state and market," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 22(1), pages 40-57, June.
    18. Weixuan Chen & Ali Cheshmehzangi & Eugenio Mangi & Timothy Heath, 2022. "Implementations of China’s New-Type Urbanisation: A Comparative Analysis between Targets and Practices of Key Elements’ Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Akaateba, Millicent Awialie & Huang, Huang & Adumpo, Emile Akangoa, 2018. "Between co-production and institutional hybridity in land delivery: Insights from local planning practice in peri-urban Tamale, Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 215-226.
    20. Das, Ashok & Susantono, Bambang (ed.), 2022. "Informal Services in Asian Cities: Lessons for Urban Planning and Management from the COVID-19 Pandemic," ADBI Books, Asian Development Bank Institute, number 30, Décembre.

    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:6:p:790-:d:825077. 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.