2. The Concept of Social Capital in the Context of Neighbour Renewal
In order to understand and define the concept of social capital in the context of neighbour renewal, the first step was to examine how previous research has explained this concept. Generally, it was seen that the definition of social capital in neighbourhood renewal was derived from social capital theory. Moreover, in examining existing definitions, two conflicting arguments could be clearly identified.
The first argument stemmed from the differences between structuralism and functionalism. From the perspective of structuralism, several scholars have defined social capital as the outcomes generated from social networks [
23,
24,
25,
26]. Within this argument, social capital was considered to be significantly associated with interactions among group members, whether they were from homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. This notion comes from the definition by scholars who have drawn from the social capital theory. Bourdieu was the first to define social capital from the perspective of networks [
27]. Bourdieu suggested that social capital is related to the durability of the network and institutionalised relationships. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, scholars tend to define social capital in terms of the frequency of interactions between residents and other social organisations or enterprises, or in the case of community participation, the level of communication between residents and government [
28]. Therefore, many scholars define social capital in neighbourhood renewal drawing from Putnam [
29], who classified it as bonding social capital (relationships among homogeneous groups), bridging social capital (relationships among heterogeneous groups) and linking social capital (relationships between different power classes). From the perspective of functionalism, scholars have described social capital based on its function [
30,
31,
32,
33,
34]. This also comes from the definition proposed by scholars using social capital theory. Social capital was first defined from the perspective of its function by Coleman [
35]. Coleman suggested that social capital can facilitate certain actions of group members. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, social capital is always seen as the sum of trust, reciprocity, and social norm among residents to facilitate cooperation and coordination in the community. Moreover, it can also be clearly seen that structuralism focuses on whether there is a relationship, and if there is, what are the types of relationships that are present. Conversely, functionalism focuses on the characteristics of relationships. These conflicting views have led to a rather odd phenomenon, where, on the one hand, studies that have defined social capital through structuralism consider it to be the relationships and interaction between residents and other organisations while using bonding, bridging, and linking to classify social capital. On the other hand, others from the perspective of functionalism have used trust and the degree of reciprocity to measure the level of social capital.
The second conflicting argument about the concept comes from the differences in views regarding social capital being an asset either at the individual level or at the collective level. This debate has existed in social capital theory literature for a long time. Liu, et al. suggested that sociologists prefer to describe social capital as an individual asset that is influenced by one’s own position, whereas political scientists prefer to define social capital as a collective property of communities [
36]. This conflict is still unresolved but is now moving in another direction—a growing number of scholars believe that social capital exists at both individual and collective levels.
To explore these two conflicting views, this study adopted the propositions of Esperanza et al. and Esser [
21,
22]. Specifically, this study classified social capital into three categories, as described in
Section 2: structural social capital, relational social capital, and cognitive social capital. Structural social capital refers to the various relationship networks that facilitate actions between individuals and organisations [
37]. Structural social capital includes: (i) bonding social capital, which refers to relationships within a homogeneous group; (ii) bridging social capital, which refers to relationships between heterogeneous group; and (iii) linking social capital, which refers to relationships between different levels of power. The relational social capital refers to the attachment strength among members of a social network [
37]. The cognitive social capital refers to social systems in which resources lead to commonly shared goals [
37].
There are two reasons for designing the conceptual framework in this way. First, structural social capital contains bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, which will satisfy the need of the perspective of structuralism. Meanwhile, relational social capital contains trust and reciprocity at the individual level, which will satisfy the need of providing the functionalism perspective. In addition, during neighbourhood renewal, two strangers may build relationships because of common interests. Cognitive social capital can be used to describe this type of social capital. Second, this conceptual framework only focuses on the individual level and does not refer to the collective level. This conceptual framework is established based on the definition of individual-level social capital proposed by Esser [
21], which helps this framework provide better clarity regarding the debate on social capital being individual or collective [
21]. The collective-level social capital is discussed in the next section.
In the context of neighbourhood renewal, the attributes of the types of social capital have been redefined and discussed as follows:
- (i)
-
The structural dimension usually stresses the control advantages provided both by the value of the information and the structural location of the social network [
38]. Structural social capital, which includes bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, is characterised as playing an essential role in community engagement and collaboration. The imbalance of structural social capital among different stakeholders may negatively impact stakeholder collaboration and become a barrier to community participation [
7,
39].
- (ii)
-
Relational social capital focuses on informal social ties with stakeholders and the strength of relationships [
40]. Among different types of informal social ties, the strength of neighbourhood ties plays an important role during the process of neighbourhood renewal. However, it should be noted that the neighbourhood tie is a unique type of relationship, which is reserved for those living in close proximity and is different from friendship as usually understood. We do not know if our neighbours are like us (or unlike us) and how they feel about us, but as they live close to us, it requires us to pay attention to our relationship with them [
41,
42]. However, there are very few studies that have noted the unique characteristics of neighbourhood ties. Souza proposed that future studies on neighbourhood ties should focus on their unique characteristics such as helpfulness, friendliness, and privacy respect [
40].
- (iii)
-
Cognitive social capital may incline individuals to take mutually beneficial collective action [
43]. Within the context of neighbourhood renewal, considering the variety of interests and of people living in an area, we cannot expect a common understanding to emerge in the process of community engagement. At least, there may initially be differences of opinion and conflicts [
7]. Focusing on this issue, the communicative planning theory is used to highlight the consensus building in community planning decisions [
44]. Several cities have used this approach to promote related policies. For example, Chicago’s South Side Planning Board (SSPB) focuses on the notion of ‘consensus’ and the development of a climate in which means are available for individuals to ‘act together in concert for a common goal’ [
45]. Thus, the cognitive social capital has an important effect in neighbourhood renewal and may even affect the structural and relational social capital [
46].
The debate on the concept and classification of social capital has been going on for a long time. The representative debate is whether reciprocity and special trust towards someone should be part of social capital. This study proposes that this debate stems from different perspectives on social capital: structuralism and functionalism. This study attempts to propose a conceptual framework of social capital in neighbourhood renewal by integrating two perspectives.
3. Formulation of Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal
As mentioned above, the formulation of social capital in neighbourhood renewal includes three basic components: trust, norms, and social structure.
Firstly, trust among residents in neighbourhood renewal mainly refers to generalised trust. According to Arrow, it is beneficial for individuals to have some trust in each other’s words [
47]. It is thus vital to understand the particular role of trust in the context of neighbourhood renewal. Different kinds of trust have been studied by previous research, such as generalised social trust (i.e., trust towards your neighbourhood or unknown people), trust in public services, and knowledge-based trust [
48]. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, trust can be divided into two categories: trust between communities and local authorities or service agencies, and trust among the residents.
In regard to trust between communities and service agencies or local authorities, previous studies have mainly focused on the effects of trust on community engagement [
49]. A plethora of studies have found that residents’ well-being and their willingness to participate in community affairs are associated with government trustworthiness [
50]. Establishing trust between communities and government is important for local authorities and service agencies to gain support and work with communities in the neighbourhood renewal process [
51]. Past experiences in the communities [
52,
53] and a lack of information and transparency [
54] may be the sources of mistrust.
In regard to trust among residents, almost all related research has committed to the view that trust is a way to realise community solidarity [
55,
56]. Previous studies have proven that trust is associated with several elements, i.e., social cooperation [
57], social cohesion [
58], and interconnection within communities [
31].
In summary, the trust between communities and local authorities or service agencies, and the trust among the residents should be covered when analysing social capital generation.
Secondly, norms among residents in neighbourhood renewal refer to the level of obligation, democratic orientation, and tolerance that will guide someone’s behaviour [
59]. Normally, participating in groups and networks may lead members to copy attitudes and behaviour because of social norms [
60]. This confirms the conclusions of previous research that highlight that ‘social capital and social norms are positively correlated’ [
61]. In the context of social norms, a neighbourhood can be defined as an entity sharing common norms [
54,
62]. According to Mathers, the concept of neighbourhood as an aggregation of residents with similar norms, values, and customs has been challenged by neighbourhood renewal [
53]. Neighbourhood renewal efforts involve diverse and complex combinations of different scales of stakeholders, social norms, processes, and programs [
63]. Thus, it is vital to understand social norms in order to deal with unnecessary costs and ensure community acceptance in the process before neighbourhood renewal [
64].
It should be noted that research on social capital in neighbourhood renewal often tends to ignore the important role of norms. The statements about norms in neighbourhood renewal derived from the few previous studies could be summarised in two aspects. On the one hand, social norms in neighbourhoods could improve resident interaction and improve social organisation [
24]. On the other hand, social norms are regarded as the reason for social cohesion and of the confinements on freedom of residents [
32,
65], which may hinder the renewal process. These findings are far from adequate to analyse social norms in neighbourhood renewal. According to Dalton and Sonja, four dimensions of social norms should be considered in the future: the norm of participation, the norm of autonomy, the norm of social order, and the norm of social citizenship [
66,
67].
Thirdly, for social structure, Coleman proposed that it can facilitate certain forms of social capital [
35]. Social structure is seen as the source of obligations and expectations of reciprocation [
68]. Social structure is normally divided into the macro- and micro-social levels [
69].
The macro-social level can be described in terms of income inequality, residential mobility, concentrated poverty, and formal institutional structure [
70]. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, the composition of the community actors is complex, and renewal activities inevitably bring about changes in the structure of the residents [
71]. Previous research has mostly focused on three aspects: (i) community income structure, (ii) distribution of different types of actors, and (iii) age distribution.
- (i)
-
Community income structure.
The social network normally has greater effects on the poor [
72]. Warren and Saegert stated that the lack of other valuable resources makes the poor more likely to rely on social capital [
73].
- (ii)
-
Distribution of different types of actors.
Neighbourhood renewal normally brings new residents and other stakeholders into the neighbourhood. The participation of these new actors leads to the incorporation of individuals into recognisable institutional structures [
74]. That means neighbourhood renewal will develop a new form of social capital in the old neighbourhood by transforming the distribution of various types of stakeholders in the neighbourhood [
24].
- (iii)
-
Age distribution.
Most old people do hope to be ‘aging in place’, which means being able to live in their own homes and communities safely, independently, and comfortably, no matter one’s age, income, or level of ability [
75]. The older residents devote more time to their communities than younger workforce residents, which means they may have more impact on the formulation of social capital [
76].
The micro-social level reflects the social network within the individual, mediating macro-level influences [
69]. The field of environmental psychology generally analyses the micro-social level impact [
77]. Research on the micro-level has mostly focused on the mechanisms and causal pathways through which social capital, physical environment, place attachment, and informal ties may be related [
78,
79]. In the community, micro-level social structures promote group identity, mutual understanding, and interactions [
24,
80,
81].
This study views collective-level social capital (trust, norms, and social structure) as formative elements of residents’ individual social capital. Although these elements have been discussed many times in previous studies in the field of social capital, the boundaries for trust, norms, and social structure are still blurred. What should the actors of trust include? Do social norms include only reciprocity? What should be included in the social structure? These questions are still not well answered. Based on this, this study systematically developed a system of social capital formation elements in the context of neighbourhood renewal.
4. The Association between Social Capital and Neighbourhood Renewal
Confusion regarding the association between neighbourhood renewal and social capital comes from the conflicting views that identify the relationship as either positive or negative. Both the views are discussed next.
4.1. The Positive Association
According to Shen et al., the profiteering of real estate and land financing is in the process of losing its financial foundation [
82]. As the marginal value of land declines, the logic of neighbourhood renewal projects has shifted from economic development to community construction [
19,
82]. Therefore, social capital can be defined as the driving force of neighbourhood renewal [
82]. Normally, social capital promotes neighbourhood renewal in two ways: consensus building and improving efficiency.
According to Innes, local community planning requires building consensus through the cooperation of multiple stakeholders [
44]. Swyngedouw notes that urban governance has been depoliticised, moving away from implementing outcomes that represent democratic decision-making to building consensus among multiple public and private stakeholders [
83]. High social capital can contribute to a stakeholder’s sense of shared group membership with another person, which may motivate all parties to insist on an agreement and coordinate their behaviour on the issue at hand [
84]. Previous research has found that high social capital can help deal with difficult problems during the renewal process, such as social exclusion, complex, intertwined ownership, and other socio-economic issues [
85]. These problems are mostly generated by the lack of novel cooperation processes and harmonious relationships.
- (ii)
-
Enhancing project efficiency
Social capital generated in the historical context creates a sense of commitment, attachment to localities, and trust that facilitates the adoption of laws and regulations for management, which may improve the process of decision-making in neighbourhood renewal projects more effectively [
55]. Previous research has found that it is vital for local politicians and officials to understand community norms to deal with unnecessary costs [
64]. Moreover, if residents can develop a sense of trust in public institutions, local governments will work with communities more easily than before [
86]. Furthermore, a renewal project with high social capital may help to cope with difficulties, whereas a project with low social capital will not cope well [
87]. Trust in the community can also facilitate collaboration and residents’ well-being [
58,
88]. The higher the level of social capital, the more prosperous social cooperation and more effective public policies [
57].
4.2. The Negative Association
The effect of social resources can be used for good and for bad, which means that social capital may have negative effects [
89]. Portes suggests that the negative side of social capital includes four aspects: (i) social exclusion, (ii) overclaims on homogeneous members, (iii) constraints on personal freedom, and (iv) lower and lower social norms [
90]. Therefore, several studies concerned the negative relationship effect of social capital on renewal projects. On the one hand, neighbourhood renewal approaches that emphasise economic growth and physical restructuring in the age of globalisation often result in the deconstruction of well-established community networks [
24,
53]. For renewal projects, new social structures can be unstable, where residents begin to lose trust in their government and community identity can be lost, which may hinder the renewal projects [
91]. On the other hand, some research has shown that high social capital can prolong the decision-making process of renewal projects [
11]. This is because of conflicts among stakeholders. Lelieveldt found that residents who were active in neighbourhood redevelopment work disliked fellow residents to a greater extent than those who were not [
59]. Renzaho, et al. proposed that the more people residents know in the community and the more involved they are in the lives of others, the more likely they are to engage with other residents’ attitudes toward the neighbourhood, which negatively affect their opinions about daily life in the neighbourhood [
13]. Ozan found a negative association between the resisting of renewal actives and the network relationships outside the projects [
92]. Whether the effect of social capital on neighbourhood renewal is negative or not has been strongly debated, and yet, no consensus has been drawn.