Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Kaijian Li
,
Ruopeng Huang
,
Guiwen Liu
,
Asheem Shrestha
,
Xinyue Fu

In the new era of sustainable urban development, neighbourhood renewal has received increasing attention. Social capital, which can be defined as the value embedded in the relationship between residents, plays a significant role in the process of neighbourhood renewal. However, within the current neighbourhood renewal knowledge domain, there is a lack of clear and systematic understanding of the various components that make up social capital, how they are formed, and how they impact neighbourhood renewal. With the rise in neighbourhood renewal projects worldwide, it has become increasingly important to facilitate better knowledge in this area. 

  • neighbourhood renewal
  • social capital
  • review

1. Introduction

Neighbourhood renewal has become one of the most important strategies for urban development [1]. As an effective means for maintaining social sustainability, the topic of neighbourhood renewal has received ongoing attention from researchers and academics [2]. Neighbourhood renewal is defined as a strategy that uses a holistic approach to improve deprived neighbourhoods by focusing on a series of fundamental problems and examining them from a sustainability perspective [3]. Neighbourhood renewal can help the members of the local communities to live and work in a better environment. Many cities around the world are now embracing this strategy to improve land values and environmental quality. Particularly, the old inner-city neighbourhoods have experienced a redevelopment process which promotes the quality of living in older neighbourhoods to catch up with other areas of the city [4].
Although neighbourhood renewal is in full swing in cities worldwide, conflicts within neighbourhood renewal projects remain an important deterrent to their success. Empirical evidence highlights several challenges which include conflicts between the public and private sectors [5], issues related to population dynamics and gentrification [6], and disharmony among different interest groups [7]. For example, in China, policies in many cities state that a new neighbourhood programme requires the full approval of the residents before it can be implemented [8][9]. This means that the disapproval of a few residents could lead to the project being put on hold. In 2010, eight old neighbourhood areas were included in the first batch of urban renewal plans put forth by the government in Shenzhen. Ten years on, plans for four of these neighbourhood areas are still being negotiated and work has only just begun on the renewal of the other four projects [10]. One of the core reasons that prevented the adoption of the renewal proposals was the difference of opinions among the residents and their willingness to participate in these programs. Similarly, in many other neighbourhood renewal projects in China, it can be seen that the resident-led renewal of older neighbourhoods has issues of non-participation and inaction on the part of the grassroots governments, whereas the private companies have been unsuccessful in obtaining government approval for collecting property fees and renewal costs from the residents.
Adverse relationships within both homogeneous and heterogeneous stakeholder groups can hinder the completion of renewal projects [11]. Therefore, cooperation is seen as one of the primary goals of neighbourhood renewal projects for ensuring the long-term development of the community.
Social capital can be defined as the goodwill available to individuals or groups and it lies in the structure of their social relationships [12]. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, social capital can help communities establish a social context, which can generate social norms and general trust, and consequently contribute toward cooperative behaviour [13][14]. However, high levels of social capital among homogeneous groups may lead to cognitive lock-ins resulting in divergent opinions and conflicts [15]. This phenomenon is often observed in renewal projects, and it has affected their successful completion. This, to a large extent, explains the occurrence of conflicts and non-cooperation in the renewal process described in the example provided above. Moreover, the gradual development of the relationships between the government, businesses, and residents in the renewal process influences the cooperation that can be achieved, and ultimately, it enables the successful completion of the renewal projects. Therefore, social capital in neighbourhoods is critical to the success of renewal projects [16].
Current studies have now begun to examine the collaboration and the interaction between multiple stakeholders in neighbourhood renewal. However, there are limited studies that have measured the quality and performance of these collaborations from the perspective of social capital. There are two major research gaps. Firstly, there is still a lack of consensus between scholars regarding the concept of social capital. The concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal is still ambiguous because researchers from different disciplines have not come to an agreement on how it can be defined. For example, it is still unclear whether social capital is a collective asset or an individual asset, if it is functional or not, and if it occurs at the micro- or macro-level? These questions remain unanswered within social capital theory, and this is the result of disparate forms of social capital that are defined in various research contexts. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, a universal concept of social capital is indeed viable as well as essential. It is viable because the types of stakeholders in neighbourhood renewal are already known, which means that the types of relationships among stakeholders are also predetermined. Considering that these relationships are major resources of social capital, they can facilitate establishing a universal concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Establishing a universal concept is essential because not only can it provide researchers with a better direction to explore the research area, but also, having a clear definition allows better analysis of social capital in neighbourhood renewal projects that can contribute towards improving the value from these projects.
Secondly, the way that social capital is examined and governed in the context of neighbourhood renewal needs to be explored further. Although there has been some notable research in this area, some gaps remain. For example, Aldrich and Meyer, from the perspective of social capital, presented several policy recommendations for community resilience through instruments such as group meetings, time banking, and community currency [17]. However, the proposed instruments cannot always be directly applied in the context of neighbourhood renewal. This is because current studies focus primarily on improving the community goals in neighbourhood renewal projects while ignoring some of the key project management goals. It is important to note that successful neighbourhood renewal projects require not only community management objectives but also construction project management objectives to be fulfilled [18][19]. Therefore, to assess whether project goals have been achieved, it is important that an integrated approach focussing on community goals as well as project management targets is used.

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 [20][21][22][23]. 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 [24]. 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 [25]. Therefore, many scholars define social capital in neighbourhood renewal drawing from Putnam [26], 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 [27][28][29][30][31]. 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 [32]. 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 [33]. 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 adopted the propositions of Esperanza et al. and Esser [34][35]. Specifically, this classified social capital into three categories: 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 [36]. 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 [36]. The cognitive social capital refers to social systems in which resources lead to commonly shared goals [36].
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 [34], which helps this framework provide better clarity regarding the debate on social capital being individual or collective [34]. 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 [37]. 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][38].
(ii)
Relational social capital focuses on informal social ties with stakeholders and the strength of relationships [39]. 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. Researchers do not know if the neighbours are like people and how they feel about, but as they live close to people, it requires researchers to pay attention to the relationship with them [40][41]. 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 [39].
(iii)
Cognitive social capital may incline individuals to take mutually beneficial collective action [42]. Within the context of neighbourhood renewal, considering the variety of interests and of people living in an area, Researchers 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 [43]. 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’ [44]. Thus, the cognitive social capital has an important effect in neighbourhood renewal and may even affect the structural and relational social capital [45].
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 proposes that this debate stems from different perspectives on social capital: structuralism and functionalism. This 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 [46]. 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 [47]. 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 [48]. A plethora of studies have found that residents’ well-being and their willingness to participate in community affairs are associated with government trustworthiness [49]. 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 [50]. Past experiences in the communities [51][52] and a lack of information and transparency [53] 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 [54][55]. Previous studies have proven that trust is associated with several elements, i.e., social cooperation [56], social cohesion [57], and interconnection within communities [28].
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 [58]. Normally, participating in groups and networks may lead members to copy attitudes and behaviour because of social norms [59]. This confirms the conclusions of previous research that highlight that ‘social capital and social norms are positively correlated’ [60]. In the context of social norms, a neighbourhood can be defined as an entity sharing common norms [53][61]. According to Mathers, the concept of neighbourhood as an aggregation of residents with similar norms, values, and customs has been challenged by neighbourhood renewal [52]. Neighbourhood renewal efforts involve diverse and complex combinations of different scales of stakeholders, social norms, processes, and programs [62]. 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 [63].
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 [21]. On the other hand, social norms are regarded as the reason for social cohesion and of the confinements on freedom of residents [29][64], 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 [65][66].
Thirdly, for social structure, Coleman proposed that it can facilitate certain forms of social capital [32]. Social structure is seen as the source of obligations and expectations of reciprocation [67]. Social structure is normally divided into the macro- and micro-social levels [68].
The macro-social level can be described in terms of income inequality, residential mobility, concentrated poverty, and formal institutional structure [69]. 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 [70]. 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 [71]. Warren and Saegert stated that the lack of other valuable resources makes the poor more likely to rely on social capital [72].
(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 [73]. 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 [21].
(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 [74]. 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 [75].
The micro-social level reflects the social network within the individual, mediating macro-level influences [68]. The field of environmental psychology generally analyses the micro-social level impact [76]. 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 [77][78]. In the community, micro-level social structures promote group identity, mutual understanding, and interactions [21][79][80].
This 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 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 [81]. As the marginal value of land declines, the logic of neighbourhood renewal projects has shifted from economic development to community construction [19][81]. Therefore, social capital can be defined as the driving force of neighbourhood renewal [81]. Normally, social capital promotes neighbourhood renewal in two ways: consensus building and improving efficiency.
(i)
Consensus building
According to Innes, local community planning requires building consensus through the cooperation of multiple stakeholders [43]. 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 [82]. 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 [83]. 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 [84]. 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 [54]. Previous research has found that it is vital for local politicians and officials to understand community norms to deal with unnecessary costs [63]. Moreover, if residents can develop a sense of trust in public institutions, local governments will work with communities more easily than before [85]. 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 [86]. Trust in the community can also facilitate collaboration and residents’ well-being [57][87]. The higher the level of social capital, the more prosperous social cooperation and more effective public policies [56].

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 [88]. 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 [89]. 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 [21][52]. 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 [90]. 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 [58]. 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 [91]. Whether the effect of social capital on neighbourhood renewal is negative or not has been strongly debated, and yet, no consensus has been drawn.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land11081202

References

  1. Li, X.; Hui, E.C.M.; Chen, T.T.; Lang, W.; Guo, Y.L. From Habitat III to the new urbanization agenda in China: Seeing through the practices of the “three old renewals” in Guangzhou. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 513–522.
  2. Pennen, T.V.D.; Bortel, G.V. Exemplary urban practitioners in neighbourhood renewal: Survival of the fittest… and the fitting. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2015, 27, 1323–1342.
  3. Tin, W.J.; Lee, S.H. Development of neighbourhood renewal in Malaysia through case study for middle income households in New Village Jinjang, KualaLumpur. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 32, 191–201.
  4. Cai, Y.N.; Yang, X.J.; Li, D.L. “Micro-transformation”: The renewal method of old urban community. Urban Dev. Stud. 2017, 24, 29–34. (In Chinese)
  5. Zheng, H.W.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Song, Y.; Sun, B.X.; Hong, J.K. Neighborhood sustainability in urban renewal: An assessment framework. Environ. Plan. B-Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 902–924.
  6. Nicolas, G.; Jordi, J.; Elisabet, V. Can urban renewal policies reverse neighborhood ethnic dynamics? J. Econ. Geogr. 2020, 20, 419–457.
  7. Dargan, L. Participation and local urban regeneration: The case of the new deal for communities (NDC) in the UK. Reg. Stud. 2009, 43, 305–317.
  8. Regulations for the Installation of Additional Lifts in Existing Residential Buildings in Guangzhou; The People’s Government of Guangzhou Municipality: Guangzhou, China, 2016.
  9. Regulations for the Installation of Additional Lifts in Existing Residential Buildings in Shantou; The People’s Government of Shantou Municipality: Shantou, China, 2014.
  10. Wang, J.S. Insights from the First Eight Districts on How to Tackle the Difficulties of Urban Renewal. Available online: https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404567455862489170#_loginLayer_1616918430050 (accessed on 27 June 2021).
  11. Halpern, D. Social Capital; Polity Press: Malden, MA, USA, 2005.
  12. Paul, S.A.; Seok, W.K. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40.
  13. Renzaho, A.M.N.; Richardson, B.; Strugnell, C. Resident well-being, community connections, and neighbourhood perceptions, pride, and opportunities among disadvantage metropolitan and regional communities: Evidence from the neighbourhood renewal project. J. Community Psychol. 2012, 40, 871–885.
  14. Han, S. Social capital and interlocal service collaboration in US counties. Reg. Stud. 2017, 51, 674–687.
  15. Kalyanaram, G. The negative effects of social capital in organisations: A review and extension. NMIMS Manag. Rev. 2018, 36, 6–9.
  16. Chahardowli, M.; Sajadzadeh, H.; Aram, F.; Mosavi, A. Survey of sustainable regeneration of historic and cultural cores of cities. Energies 2020, 13, 2708.
  17. Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269.
  18. Semenza, J.C.; March, T.L.; Bontempo, B.D. Community-initiated urban development: An ecological intervention. J. Urban Health 2006, 48, 1.
  19. Barber, A.; Pareja-Eastaway, M. Leadership challenges in the inner city: Planning for sustainable regeneration in Birmingham and Barcelona. Policy Stud. 2010, 31, 393–411.
  20. Doris, D.; Florian, R. The “Comprehensive village renewal programme in Burgenland” as a means a strengthening the social capital in rural areas. Eur. Countrys. 2014, 1, 18–35.
  21. Zhai, B.Q.; Ng, M.K. Urban regeneration and social capital in China: A case study of the Drum Tower Muslim District in Xi’an. Cities 2013, 35, 14–25.
  22. Prior, J.; Blessi, G.T. Social capital, local communities and culture-led urban regeneration processes: The Sydney Olympic Park experience. Cosmop. Civ. Soc. 2012, 4, 3.
  23. Butler, T.; Robson, G. Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: A comparison of three South London neighbourhoods. Urban Stud. 2001, 38, 2145–2162.
  24. Bourdieu, P. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Greenwood Press: Westport, CN, USA, 1986.
  25. Fu, Q. How does the neighborhood inform activism? Civic engagement in urban transformation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 1–8.
  26. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  27. Shin, B. Determinants of social capital from a network perspective: A case of Sinchon regeneration project using exponential random graph models. Cities 2022, 120, 103419.
  28. Natalia, L.; Vanessa, P.; Alejandra, V.; Paola, O.; Mercè, G. Effects of an urban regeneration program on related social determinants of health in Chile: A pre-post intervention study. Health Place 2021, 68, 102511.
  29. Du, T.; Zeng, N.; Huang, Y.; Yejre, H. Relationship between the dynamics of social capital and the dynamics of residential satisfaction under the impact of urban renewal. Cities 2020, 107, 102933.
  30. Kim, H.; Marcouiller, D.W.; Choi, Y. Urban redevelopment with justice implications: The role of social justice and social capital in residential relocation decisions. Urban Aff. Rev. 2019, 55, 288–320.
  31. Ryu, H.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, S. Participatory neighborhood revitalization effects on social capital: Evidence from community building projects in Seoul. J. Urban Plan. 2018, 144, 04017025.
  32. Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120.
  33. Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tao, R. Social capital and migrant housing experiences in urban China: A structural equation modelling analysis. Hous. Stud. 2013, 28, 1155–1174.
  34. Esser, H. The Handbook of Social Capital; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008.
  35. Esperanza, V.; Fernando, E.G.; Jose, A.G.; Jose, L.C. Are theories about social capital empirically supported? Evidence from the farming sector. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 114, 1331–1359.
  36. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266.
  37. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91, 481–510.
  38. Jung, T.H.; Lee, J.; Yap, M.H.; Ineson, E.M. The role of stakeholder collaboration in culture-led urban regeneration: A case study of the Gwangju project, Korea. Cities 2015, 44, 29–39.
  39. Souza, T.M.D. Urban regeneration and tenure mix: Exploring the dynamics of neighbour interactions. Hous. Stud. 2019, 34, 1521–1542.
  40. Painter, J. The politics of the neighbour. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2012, 30, 515–533.
  41. Volker, B.; Flap, H. Sixteen million neighbours: A multilevel study of the role of neighbours in the personal networks of the Dutch. Urban Aff. Rev. 2007, 43, 256–284.
  42. Ramon, H.A.E.; Kozak, R.; Harshaw, H.; Tindall, D. Differential effects of cognitive and structural social capital on empowerment in two community ecotourism projects in Ghana. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 31, 57–73.
  43. Innes, J.E. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996, 62, 460–472.
  44. Carriere, M. Chicago, the south side planning board, and the search for (Further) order: Toward an intellectual lineage of urban renewal in post war America. J. Urban Hist. 2012, 39, 411–432.
  45. Qian, L.; Yang, P.; Xue, J. Hindering or enabling structural social capital to enhance buyer performance? The role of relational social capital at two levels in China. J. Bus.—Bus. Mark. 2018, 25, 213–231.
  46. Arrow, K. Political and economic evaluation of social effects and externalities. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 1970, 1–30.
  47. Meng, A.; Clausen, T.; Borg, V. The association between team-level social capital and individual-level work engagement: Differences between subtypes of social capital and the impact of intra-team agreement. Scand. J. Psychol. 2018, 59, 198–205.
  48. Aitken, D. Trust and participation in urban regeneration. People Place Policy Online 2012, 6, 133–147.
  49. Turcu, C. Local experiences of urban sustainability: Researching housing market renewal interventions in three English neighbourhoods. Prog. Plan. 2012, 78, 101–150.
  50. Stratigea, A.; Kikidou, M.; Patelida, M.; Somarakis, G. Engaging citizens in planning open public space regeneration: Pedio Agora framework. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2018, 144, 05017016.
  51. Jackson, C. The effect of urban renewal on fragmented social and political engagement in urban environments. J. Urban Aff. 2019, 41, 503–517.
  52. Mathers, J.; Parry, J.; Jones, S. Exploring resident (non-) participation in the UK new deal for communities regeneration programme. Urban Stud. 2008, 45, 591–606.
  53. Huang, K.; Pai, B. A study on promotion mechanisms and the future of government-led urban renewal projects from the perspective of land ethics. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 3, 22–38.
  54. Izadi, A.; Mohammadi, M.; Nasekhian, S.; Memar, S. Structural functionalism, social sustainability and the historic environment: A role for theory in urban regeneration. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2020, 11, 158–180.
  55. Kramer, D.; Lakerveld, J.; Stronks, K.; Kunst, A. Uncovering how urban regeneration programs may stimulate leisure-time walking among adults in deprived areas: A realist review. Int. J. Health Serv. 2017, 47, 703–724.
  56. Parés, M.; Bonet, M.J.; Martí-Costa, M. Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Aff. Rev. 2012, 48, 238–271.
  57. Chan, H.H.; Hu, T.; Fan, P. Social sustainability of urban regeneration led by industrial land redevelopment in Taiwan. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 1245–1269.
  58. Lelieveldt, H. Helping citizens help themselves. Urban Aff. Rev. 2004, 39, 531–551.
  59. Alenka, S.; Savis, G.; Coline, S.; Yan, X.; Carmel, L. An interactive tool for citizens’ involvement in the sustainable regeneration. Facilities 2020, 38, 859–870.
  60. McNeill, L.H.; Kreuter, M.W.; Subramanian, S.V. Social environment and physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 63, 1011–1022.
  61. Dalton, R.J. Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Stud. 2008, 56, 76–98.
  62. Sepe, M. Urban transformation, socio-economic regeneration and participation: Two cases of creative urban regeneration. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2014, 6, 20–41.
  63. Zewdie, M.; Worku, H.; Bantider, A. Inner city urban renewal: Assessing the sustainability and implications for urban landscape change of Addis Ababa. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 1249–1275.
  64. Hindhede, A. Neighbourhood renewal, participation, and social capital in deprived areas: Unintended consequences in a Nordic context. Eur. Soc. 2016, 18, 535–559.
  65. Dalton, R.J. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American Politics; CQ Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  66. Zmerli, S. Social capital and norms of citizenship: An ambiguous relationship? Am. Behav. Sci. 2010, 53, 657–676.
  67. Hibbitt, K.; Jones, P.; Meegan, R. Tackling social exclusion: The role of social capital in urban regeneration on Merseyside—From mistrust to trust? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2001, 9, 141–161.
  68. Thorlindsson, T.; Valdimarsdóttir, M.; Jonsson, S. Community social structure, social capital and adolescent smoking: A multi-level analysis. Health Place 2012, 18, 796–804.
  69. Thorlindsson, T. Bring in the social context: Towards an integrated approach to health promotion and prevention. Scand. J. Public Health 2011, 39, 19–25.
  70. Grabkowska, M. Between gentrification and reurbanisation. The participatory dimension of bottom-up regeneration in Gdańsk, Poland. Geografie 2015, 120, 210–225.
  71. Kim, H. Effects of social capital on collective action for community development. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2018, 46, 1011–1028.
  72. Warren, M.R.; Thompson, J.P.; Saegert, S. The role of social capital in combating poverty. Soc. Cap. Poor Communities 2001, 3, 1–28.
  73. Pollock, V.L.; Sharp, J. Real participation or the tyranny of participatory practice? Public art and community involvement in the regeneration of the Raploch, Scotland. Urban Stud. 2012, 49, 3063–3079.
  74. Cho, M.; Kim, J. Coupling urban regeneration with age-friendliness: Neighborhood regeneration in Jangsu Village, Seoul. Cities 2016, 58, 107–114.
  75. Burns, V.F.; Lavoie, J.P.; Rose, D. Revisiting the role of neighbourhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. J. Aging Res. 2012, 2012, 148287.
  76. Lisa, W.; Billie, G. Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place? J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 154–163.
  77. Lewicka, M. Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 381–395.
  78. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J. Perceived residential environment of neighborhood and subjective well-being among the elderly in China: A mediating role of sense of community. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 82–94.
  79. Amaldoss, W.; Jain, S. Trading up: A strategic analysis of reference group effects. Mark. Sci. 2008, 27, 932–942.
  80. Jia, S.; Xu, X. Community-level social capital and agricultural cooperatives: Evidence from Hebei, China. Agribusiness 2021, 37, 804–817.
  81. Shen, T.; Yao, X.; Wen, F. The urban regeneration engine model: An analytical framework and case study of the renewal of old communities. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105571.
  82. Swyngedouw, E. Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 1991–2006.
  83. Cornelissen, J.; Haslam, S.; Balmer, J. Social identity, organisational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products. Br. J. Manag. 2007, 18, S1–S16.
  84. Chen, Y.; Qu, L. Emerging participative approaches for urban regeneration in Chinese megacities. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2019, 146, 04019029.
  85. Czupich, M. Level of social participation in the creation of urban regeneration programmes-The case study of small towns in Poland. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2018, 25, 81–98.
  86. Cox, E. Creating a more civil society: Community level indicators of social capital. Just Policy A J. Aust. Soc. Policy 2000, 19, 100–107.
  87. Hong, Z.; Park, I. Is the well-being of neighboring cities important to me? Analysis of the spatial effect of social capital and urban amenities in South Korea. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021, 154, 169–190.
  88. Villalonga-Olives, E.; Kawachi, I. The dark side of social capital: A systematic review of the negative health effects of social capital. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 194, 105–127.
  89. Portes, A. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998, 24, 43–67.
  90. Blessi, G.; Tremblay, D.; Sandri, M.; Pilati, T. New trajectories in urban regeneration processes: Cultural capital as source of human and social capital accumulation—Evidence from the case of Tohu in Montreal. Cities 2012, 29, 397–407.
  91. Ayca, Z. Differentiated urban citizenship and housing rights: Analysing the social impacts of urban redevelopment in globalizing Istanbul. Int. Plan. Stud. 2014, 19, 268–291.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback