Author
Listed:
- Fan Chenjing
- Gu Yueying
- Jin Chenxi
- Yao Zhihao
- Liu Runhan
Abstract
Urban renewal is critical for improving city functionality after reaching a certain urbanization level. Although urban vitality is an effective indicator of the spatiotemporal effects of urban renewal, significant gaps exist in using cross-sectional data to assess the effectiveness of urban renewal, especially regarding changes in the socioeconomic vitality of cities. In addition, no evaluation framework exists to identify issues and inform future planning improvements. Therefore, this study constructs a comprehensive evaluation framework based on the vitality index to assess the impact of 57 urban renewal projects on multidimensional changes in urban vitality in Nanjing from 2015 to 2019. Multidimensional dynamic data, such as 1,174,473 Weibo tweets in 2015 and 1,318,844 in 2019, 20 population density heat maps, and 353,231 facility data in 2015 and 638,381 in 2019, are used to establish the framework. Although urban renewal effectively increased population density and improved facility distribution, with an average increase in the vitality index of 1.375 and 0.878, respectively, it failed to improve residents’ satisfaction, which decreased by 0.386, adversely affecting residential urban renewal projects. The analysis of the factors influencing urban renewal performance shows that location, increase in floor area (Additional Gross Floor Area), policies, and their implementation are crucial for increasing urban vitality. These findings underscore the necessity of prioritizing residents’ needs and expectations during urban renewal. Furthermore, our framework provides urban planners and decision-makers with new insights and practical methodologies on the effective implementation of urban renewal projects to ensure sustainable urban development.
Suggested Citation
Fan Chenjing & Gu Yueying & Jin Chenxi & Yao Zhihao & Liu Runhan, 2026.
"Does urban renewal enhance urban vitality? A case study of Nanjing, China, using multidimensional data,"
Environment and Planning B, , vol. 53(5), pages 986-1001, June.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:envirb:v:53:y:2026:i:5:p:986-1001
DOI: 10.1177/23998083251347682
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:envirb:v:53:y:2026:i:5:p:986-1001. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.