Financial Support for Neighborhood Regeneration: A Case Study of Korea

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between financial support and neighborhood regeneration in Korea. A questionnaire about neighborhood regeneration projects was administered to 175 Korean respondents in the regeneration field. Results found that the housing revitalization project needed more public funds than private funds for successful outcomes. The private sector participation project required public-private cooperation. The local economy vitalization project needed public funds to build infrastructure. The local living improvement project needed public funds for infrastructure. The local living network project could be led by public funds including the facility fund. The local economy operation project required public and private funds for local programs and facility support. The results offer the optimization of financial support efficiency by providing customized support funds for neighborhood regeneration projects.

1. Introduction

Today’s urban regeneration aims to meet cities’ economic, environmental, and social needs [1]. Developed countries have focused on urban regeneration to follow this global trend. One of these countries is Korea, which has recently undergone rapid transformations through proactive urban regeneration. The definition of urban regeneration reflects the country’s geographic, social, and economic contexts [2]. Korea enacted the Special Act on Urban Regeneration and Support (SAURS) in 2013 and promoted urban regeneration projects [3]. The SAURS classified urban regeneration into either the urban economy or the neighborhood. Urban economy indicates large-scale projects and requires infrastructure development. Neighborhood regeneration carries out small-scale projects with a small budget to improve living conditions at the local level. Such improvements can generate a positive externality (e.g., better resident life quality) that brings sustainable neighborhood development [4]. Neighborhood regeneration attempts to improve living conditions, expand local living infrastructure, revitalize the neighborhood, and revive the local economy [5]. Neighborhood regeneration is also related to the community’s demographic characteristics and geographical attributes of infrastructure [6].

Research on neighborhood regeneration has increased in recent years [7]. For example, Jang addressed that urban regeneration can be elaborated when neighborhoods are considered [8]. Lee and Ahn suggested intermediary support organizations’ essential role in neighborhood regeneration [9]. Past research also found social economy entities for financial support [10] and the private sector’s [11] participation in financial support. However, limited research has been done on sustainable neighborhood regeneration financial support [12,13,14]. The present financial support is made for entire project funds rather than for specific funds. To increase efficiency, customized financial support for each project needs to be established [15,16]. Mehaffy, Salingaros, and Kryazheva state that the contemporary urban development system is deficient in producing economies of differentiation [4]. To balance scales and places, a specification on diversification and adaptation to changing conditions is needed. Tailored financial support for neighborhood regeneration is one of the specifications and differentiation.

Using data from Korea, this study aimed to derive customized financial support for each neighborhood regeneration project. To accomplish the research goal, this study examined (1) neighborhood regeneration projects that need financial support and (2) financial support funds for neighborhood regeneration projects and items. This study adapted a pattern language of neighborhood regeneration to questions and answers. A pattern language refers to a coherent set of patterns in which a problem and a solution are provided in the urban development field [4]. The problem in this study is a lack of tailored financial support for different neighborhood regeneration projects. Finding funds for neighborhood regeneration can offer solutions for financial support efficiency.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Definition and Status of Urban Regeneration

Urban regeneration has received attention as it emerges to resolve population decline, population aging, industrial decline, and housing and infrastructure aging in cities worldwide. Urban regeneration is considered a multidisciplinary model that includes urban planning, the economy, and housing policies [17,18]. Urban regeneration today opposes physical growth. Instead, the urban regeneration approach attempts to resolve social problems of the current society, such as population decline and urban aging [19]. The meaning of urban regeneration today includes resident- and community-centered participation. A broader conceptualization of urban regeneration has also been related to local asset utilization. In the environmental aspect, urban regeneration indicates eco-friendliness and sustainability [9]. As such, urban regeneration can be an integrated change of physical, economic, social, and ecological structures by inducing actions in urban projects [20].

2.2. The Status and Recent Trend of Neighborhood Regeneration

Drawn from the urban regeneration perspective, neighborhood regeneration means an integrated enhancement of economic, social, and environmental structures at the neighborhood level. A neighborhood indicates both the ‘close’ physical distance and the ‘neighboring’ social distance. Neighborhood regeneration aims to resolve problems in local society caused by local communities. Neighborhood regeneration is also a driving force of urban development for collective local productivity. Therefore, neighborhood regeneration can develop into urban regeneration [8]. Neighborhood regeneration improves well-being and social environments [21]. There are multiple elements for successful neighborhood regeneration.

First, one element is resident participation, because residents know local problems best and can provide innovative ideas to resolve them [22,23]. Resident participation can prevent crimes through social separation [24]. Resident participation is needed for sustainable local development [14]. Kim [25] noted that long-term and sustainable spatial regeneration systems of the government, public-private sectors, and local communities are needed to execute projects suitable for local conditions. Jeon [11] addressed that the sustainability of neighborhood regeneration stems from residents’ voluntary participation. As such, neighborhood regeneration accommodates sustainable regeneration through resident participation [26]. In Barcelona—to cite an international example—the government emphasized resident participation in smart city establishment. Resident participation was a crucial element in the project implementation process [27]. There is a growing perception that the private sector must engage in job creation projects [26] and that strategies must be developed to draw resident participation in neighborhood regeneration projects [28].

Second, intermediary support organizations are another element [8]. Intermediary organizations positively influence neighborhood regeneration through networks [29]. In Korea, neighborhood regeneration support organizations play an intermediary role [3]. In Brazil, the Favela-Bairro program used intermediary support organizations to induce resident participation in neighborhood regeneration [30]. “Elemental”—a building project group as an intermediary support organization—used a government subsidiary to build houses in the central urban area [31]. Another example is the UK’s Coin Street Builder. The Coin Street Builder performs as a neighborhood regeneration support center for the local community [32].

Third, another component is local assets. Mayer [33] defined local assets as a component of community activities, support, and technology for problem-solving based on local strengths. Local assets include materialistic resources (e.g., cultural heritage) and non-materialistic resources (e.g., local identity) [34]. Some examples of neighborhood regeneration utilizing local assets include the Geonyang Salon project in Changsin-dong, Seoul, Korea utilizing Hanok, traditional Korean houses [35], and the Lilac Garden project in Daegu city utilizing the house of the late poet Lee Sangwha and an alley by the house [36]. Cosmo 40 in Seo-gu Incheon city, Korea is the case that established an anchor facility for a regeneration space hub using an abandoned factory. This abandoned factory regeneration project was to remodel the Cosmo chemical refinery plant in Seo-gu, Incheon into a cultural space [36]. Through these local assets, people gathered in the area and neighborhood regeneration was expanded. Such neighborhood resources and activities are important local assets [4].

Fourth, social economy entities such as community, private, or social enterprises can ignite sustainable neighborhood regeneration. The local economy needs to be rooted in underdeveloped areas and be self-sufficient [37]. Kwak, Bae, and Kim [38] examined problem-solving for underdeveloped local society through local community vitalization. The core entities of local economy vitalization include social economy entities. Social economy entities can foster coworking, cultural, and co-living spaces that profit organizations may not handle [39]. Kim and Nah [40] discussed that social economy entities aim at providing social services and jobs to underserved populations. Jeon and Byun [41] found a positive influence of social economy entities on sustainable development. Jang and Moon [42] emphasized social economy entities for neighborhood regeneration.

2.3. Financial Support for Neighborhood Regeneration

Financial support for neighborhood regeneration is needed for sustainable community development [28]. Related past research has been conducted on the necessity of the private sector’s participation in sustainable neighborhood regeneration. Another group of studies has been done on comprehensive financial support to increase efficient strategies.

First, the private sector’s participation can lead to sustainable neighborhood regeneration [43]. Private participation is possible only when profitability is guaranteed. The role of the NHUF (National Housing and Urban Fund) is needed in profitability-based projects [44]. The NHUF is run by the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation and the Ministry of Land and Transportation of Korea to support investments, loans, and public guarantees in urban and neighborhood regeneration. Therefore, the role of the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation and the NHUF is essential to draw private sector participation along with public support [45]. Public-private cooperation is present in private-sector financial participation. In Japan, MINTO is an agency that implements urban development projects based on the Private City Development Special Act. The agency provides consulting, advising, supporting subsidiaries, and loans in project implementation [28]. This project uses a matching fund to support the projects. This case tells that the private sector accommodates project security and sustainability. A representative example includes Machitzkuri (a village building movement). In transforming the declining downtown of Kokura city into a renovated Machitzkuri movement, this project triggered a five-year-long change in the village through a private-led government-private partnership. The Renovation School, which studies remodeling utilizing unused real estate, acted as a critical driver, contributing to building regeneration and enhancing local value [32].

Second, social financial institutions as intermediary support organizations can be utilized for neighborhood regeneration. For example, the CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution) of the US contributes to local revitalization as an intermediary support organization. The CDFI promoted local economic development with the funds of the Ministry of Finance. Main programs include financial assistance (FA) with CDFIs. Another program is certified CDFIs and technical assistance (TA) that support equipment purchase, contract costs, incentive payment, and training costs. Certifications are provided to financial institutions that are dedicated to local social development.

Third, comprehensive financial support for location-based neighborhood regeneration can be conducted. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) of the US and the Single Regeneration Budget of the UK are examples. The location-based support going beyond project units has positive effects on neighborhood regeneration projects because the support can be targeted [46]. The subjects of support are not limited to local governments. The support goes to local social organizations and governance as well. The funds support hardware, including pre-project planning, competence, facility development, and software, such as technological, personnel, and resident competence [47].

3. Research Questions

As reviewed, previous research on financial support factors for neighborhood regeneration encompasses local assets, social economy entities, resident participation, private sector finance participation, intermediary support organizations, and comprehensive financial support. These studies have been used to create projects for neighborhood regeneration financial support. However, research on efficient and tailored financial support for neighborhood regeneration is relatively limited. The present financial support is conducted in the form of the entire cost rate (e.g., 70 percent of all projects). Specific and detailed financial support strategies for each project are needed for efficiency. In implementing neighborhood regeneration, multiple steps from planning to securing spaces and execution are needed. Further, differential strategies for financial support at each step are required.

Through a systematic analysis of past regeneration proposals, an administration of a survey, and an in-depth interview of experts in the field, this study offers solutions to fitting financial support funds for neighborhood regeneration projects in the pattern language methodology [4]. Therefore, this study conducted an analysis of financial support strategies for neighborhood regeneration projects. In turn, the analysis classified neighborhood regeneration into projects and items and provided financial support strategies for them from a survey. The research questions guiding this study seek financial support plans for neighborhood regeneration.

RQ1: How is financial support related to neighborhood regeneration projects?

RQ2: What financial support fits neighborhood regeneration projects?

4. Method

4.1. Project and Item Design for Neighborhood Regeneration

This study aimed to propose financial support that fits neighborhood regeneration. To this end, first, the classification of neighborhood regeneration projects and item formation were implemented. Second, prior research on neighborhood regeneration and financial support was systematically reviewed. Of the studies registered in the Basic Academic Data Center of Korea Research Memory (KRM), the studies from keyword searches—urban regeneration and projects, neighborhood regeneration and projects, and financial and funding support since 2018—were selected. As a result of the systematic analysis, six projects and 48 items were drawn.

Third, a systematic analysis of project proposals and cases derived four funds for financial support for neighborhood regeneration projects: (1) the real estate fund, (2) the facility fund, (3) the lease fund, and (4) the operating fund. The real estate fund refers to the land and facility purchase fund at the beginning of a project. The facility fund is for facility remodeling and new buildings in the leased or purchased real estate. The lease fund is for leasing land and facilities. The operating fund is the fund for the facility after building it.

Fourth, two neighborhood regeneration experts with extensive research experience reviewed the projects and items for the final questionnaire (Appendix A). The two experts are well-known scholars in the neighborhood regeneration discipline. They consulted survey questions, successful neighborhood regeneration cases, and characteristics of neighborhood regeneration.

The six neighborhood regeneration projects are defined in

Table 1. Neighborhood regeneration projects.

Types of Neighborhood Regeneration Projects	Definitions
Housing vitalization project	Supports housing, constructs social infrastructure, and secures stable living for underserved populations
2. Private sector participation project	Creates facilities to support private entities for sustainable neighborhood regeneration
3. Local economy vitalization project	Improves commercial and tourist facilities and local assets to promote the local economy
4. Local living improvement project	Creates a convenient and safe living environment
5. Local living network project	Supports residents for networking and resident-led neighborhood projects
6. Local economy operation project	Develops and operates local economy programs for growing private entities

.

4.2. Data Collection from a Survey and In-Depth Interviews

This study used a purposive sampling method to collect responses from professionals in the neighborhood regeneration field. The first author of this study used professional networks to reach out to workers who have experience with neighborhood regeneration. The researcher intentionally contacted neighborhood regeneration workers to solicit survey participation. Therefore, nonprobability sampling was used to collect data in this study. As the researcher’s university does not require IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval for research with human subjects, this study did not receive IRB approval. Potential respondents were 300 experts in the neighborhood regeneration-related fields, such as those in academia, research institutes, and intermediary support organizations. For 14 days from 17 February to 2 March 2020, a total of 181 responses were collected from direct door-to-door visits, phone calls, and e-mail requests. After eliminating incomplete questionnaires, 175 were used for analysis (response rate: 58.3%).

Additionally, an in-depth interview was conducted on how financial support for each stage of real estate purchase, facility development, and operation should proceed. This study selected ten interviewees who had experience with neighborhood regeneration over ten years. With purposive sampling, the researcher reached out to public organizations, local governments, and intermediary organizations. The researcher asked their opinions on financial support for the six projects. The researcher requested an interview by contacting them via email. If they consented, the researcher met them in person to conduct an interview. The respondents of in-depth interviews were experts in the neighborhood regeneration field. The ten respondents consisted of two urban housing fund experts, two employees from neighborhood regeneration public organizations, two from neighborhood regeneration support centers, two experts from the private sector, and two local government employees (

Table 2. Demographic information about interviewees.

Last Name		Affiliation	Position	Level of Education	Total Employment History (Related to Neighborhood Regeneration)
1	Lee	Public institution (fund)	Team leader	Master	19 (12)
2	Cho	Public institution (fund)	Team leader	Master	14 (10)
3	Baek	Public institution (Project entity)	Team leader	Doctorate	17 (7)
4	Seok	Public institution (Project entity)	Deputy department head	Master	18 (4)
5	Son	Private expert	Director	Doctorate	14 (9)
6	Lee	Private expert	CEO	Doctorate	10 (10)
7	Jang	Local government	Section chief	Doctorate	30 (10)
8	Jeon	Local government	Action officer	Doctorate	14 (11)
9	Lee	Neighborhood regeneration support center	Head of the center	Doctorate	20 (12)
10	Lee	Neighborhood regeneration support center	Team leader	Doctorate	22 (12)

). They participated in the interviews from 21 May to 8 June 2020.

4.3. Measurements of Survey Items and In-Depth Interview Questions

The questionnaire questions were created using the six projects, funds, and two experts’ consults. Based on the neighborhood regeneration projects (Table 1), the survey assessed the financial support for project items with the four types of financial support: (1) the real estate fund, (2) the facility fund, (3) the lease fund, and (4) the operating fund in a five-point scale from 1 = Does not need at all to 5 = Needs very much (Appendix A). The in-depth interview asked the respondents about each project’s funding sources. Questions included financial support plans, funding sources in each stage of the project, and ideas of support for neighborhood regeneration (Appendix B).

4.4. Data Analysis Plan

Figure 1 displays the research design and data analysis processes. Quantitative analysis of the data was conducted using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Reliability tests, descriptive statistics, paired-sample t-tests, and positioning analysis were carried out. Paired-sample t-tests compared different perceptions about financial support by projects. Positioning analysis was conducted to analyze financial support for neighborhood regeneration (Figure 2). Through the positioning analysis, this study derived differential financial support types for the neighborhood regeneration projects. For the interview responses, an interpretative analysis was used.

The goal of applying a pattern language to this study is to generate and reproduce the essence of a functioning structure in financial support for neighborhood regeneration [4]. The results of this study are expected to generate a solution to fitting financial support for projects at the neighborhood level.

5. Findings

5.1. Sample Characteristics

A total of 175 respondents were surveyed, with 117 males (66.9%) and 58 females (33.1%). Over 65% of the sample’s ages were between 41–50 (n = 61, 34.9%) and 51–60 (n = 54, 30.9%). Respondents’ organizations were intermediary support organizations (e.g., neighborhood regeneration support centers, etc.) (n = 45, 25.7%), followed by local government (n = 43, 24.6%), and private experts (e.g., local activists) (n = 36, 20.6%).

5.2. Answers for Research Questions

RQ1 asked to identify projects that show financial support for neighborhood regeneration (

Table 3. Financial support by project type.

Projects		Real Estate Fund	Facility Fund	Lease Fund	Operating Fund	Total Avg.
A	Housing vitalization project	3.47	3.90	3.19	3.28	3.46
B	Private sector participation project	3.59	3.75	3.61	3.59	3.63
C	Local economy vitalization project	3.07	3.53	3.05	3.17	3.20
D	Local living improvement project	3.06	3.63	2.59	3.06	3.08
E	Local living network project	3.16	3.38	3.01	3.33	3.22
F	Local economy operation project	2.86	3.17	3.17	3.54	3.18
Total avg.		3.20	3.56	3.10	3.33	3.30

). The average of financial support for neighborhood regeneration projects was 3.30. The highest financial support for neighborhood regeneration projects was the private sector participation project (M = 3.63), followed by the housing vitalization project (M = 3.46), the local living network project (M = 3.22), the local economy vitalization project (M = 3.20), the local economy operation project (M = 3.18), and the local living improvement project (M = 3.08). Additionally, the highest financial support by funds was the facility fund (M = 3.56), followed by the operating fund (M = 3.33), the real estate fund (M = 3.20), and the lease fund (M = 3.10).

The financial support funding for the six projects demonstrated different ranks (

Table 4. Financial support fund rankings for each project type.

Section		1st	2nd	3rd	4th
A	Housing vitalization project	Facility fund *	Real estate fund *	Operating fund	Lease fund
B	Private sector participation project	Facility fund *	Lease fund *	Real estate fund, operating fund *	-
C	Local economy vitalization project	Facility fund *	Operating fund	Real estate fund	Lease fund
D	Local living improvement project	Facility fund *	Real estate fund, operating fund	Lease fund	-
E	Local living network project	Facility fund *	Operating fund *	Real estate fund	Lease fund
F	Local economy operation project	Operating fund *	Facility fund, lease fund	Real estate fund	-

* Above the overall average of financial support.

). The financial support for the facility fund was high in the housing vitalization project, the private sector participation project, the local economy vitalization project, and the local living network project.

RQ2 asked about financial support funds for neighborhood regeneration projects. Paired-sample t-tests and positioning analyses were carried out (

Table 5. Differences of responses between funds.

Funds	Difference in Response					t	d.f.	p
	Avg.	SD	Avg. SD	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference in Response
				Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Real estate fund—Facility fund	−0.360 *	0.158	0.065	−0.526	−0.194	−5.579	5	0.003
Real estate fund—Lease fund	0.098	0.270	0.110	−0.185	0.382	0.893	5	0.413
Real estate fund—Operating fund	−0.126	0.301	0.123	−0.441	0.190	−1.026	5	0.352
Facility fund—Lease fund	0.459 *	0.381	0.155	0.059	0.858	2.951	5	0.032
Facility fund—Operating fund	0.234	0.371	0.151	−0.155	0.623	1.548	5	0.182
Lease fund—Operating fund	−0.224 *	0.189	0.077	−0.423	−0.026	−2.905	5	0.034

* p < 0.5.

). As a result of testing differences between financial support, significance was found between the real estate fund and the facility fund (t = −5.579, p < 0.05), the real estate fund and the lease fund (t = 2.951, p < 0.05), and the lease fund and the operating fund (t = −2.905, p < 0.05).

An additional analysis to answer RQ2 was positioning analysis. The results of the positioning analysis on the real estate fund and facility fund for neighborhood regeneration projects are displayed in Figure 3. A notable finding is that the financial support for real estate and facilities was located in the housing vitalization project and the private sector participation project. The results of positioning analysis based on the facility fund and the lease fund for neighborhood regeneration projects are demonstrated in Figure 4. The housing vitalization project and the private sector participation project needed both the facility fund and the lease fund. Figure 5 shows the results of the positioning analysis on the lease fund and the operating fund. The private sector participation project and the local economy operation project needed both the facility fund and the lease fund.

Another positioning analysis of the financial support for neighborhood regeneration project items was carried out. The results of the positioning analysis for the real estate fund-facility fund, the facility fund-lease fund, and the lease fund-operating fund for the neighborhood regeneration projects are shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8. As the results show, the facility fund and the real estate fund can be used for the housing vitalization project and the local living improvement project. The positioning analysis drew differential financial support funds by associating financial support with project items (

Table 6. Results of positioning analysis on financial support by neighborhood urban generation project items.

Section	A Housing Vitalization Project	B Private Sector Participation Project	C Local Economy Vitalization Project	D Local Living Improvement Project	E Local Living Network Project	F Local Economy Operation Project
Real estate fund + facility fund	1, 2, 5, 8	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8	3, 8	5, 6, 8	1, 2	6
Facility fund + lease fund	1, 2, 5, 8	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8	3, 8	5, 6	1, 2	-
Lease fund + operating fund	1, 2, 5, 8	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8	3	5, 6	1, 2	1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
Real estate fund	6, 7	4	2	-	3	-
Facility fund	3, 4, 6	-	4	1, 4, 7, 8	-	-
Lease fund	-	4, 5	5, 7, 8	-	-	1, 2, 3, 7, 8
Operating fund	-	-	5	8	5, 6, 7, 8	5
Excluded items	-	-	1, 6	2, 3	4	4

Note. The above numbers represent project items (see Appendix A for items).

).

Experts’ opinions were analyzed for financial support funds and projects. Respondents mentioned that the housing vitalization project needed the public rather than the private sector. The financial support for the private sector participation project needed public sector participation. In experts’ opinions on the local economy vitalization project, the cooperation and growth between the public and private sectors were most needed for this project. The local living improvement project was needed by the public sector.

The local living network project needed the public sector mainly. The public sector needs finance as the funding source, as the project needs the reinforcement of social, economic, and cultural networks that connect the residents with diverse backgrounds. The local economy operation project needed the public sector in cooperation with the private sector. The project needs to prioritize financial support for infrastructure programs and facility support projects to reinforce the local economy and resident competence.

6. Discussion

6.1. Implications of Findings

This study analyzed neighborhood generation projects and proposed differential financial support for the projects. As past research points out [48], funding support at the neighborhood level needs to be elaborated and customized. Following the pattern language methodology [4], the results suggest that the financial support patterns fit different neighborhood regeneration projects. The analyses present the patterns of process in financial support. The patterns of financial support funds demonstrate the process the funds fit for the projects and items.

The housing vitalization project needed financial support to build residential facilities (RQ1). For example, the private sector participation project aims to develop hub spaces for start-ups that participate in neighborhood regeneration projects [49]. The local economy vitalization project accommodates local competence and training programs for social economy entities. Therefore, the project mainly needs the operating fund, the tailored facility fund, or the lease fund.

The analyses showed significant differences among the funds, projects, and items (RQ2). The difference between the real estate fund and the facility fund implies that even though the neighborhood regeneration projects aim to develop facilities, they need efficient support for tangible financial support outcomes. From the results, the housing vitalization project and the private sector participation project need financial support for real estate and remodeling. The local living improvement project needs financial support from the facility fund. Analyzing financial support by projects suggested that project entities should be distinct. Public projects such as the housing vitalization project, the local living improvement project, and the local living network project need to be led by the public sector. The financial support for living quality improvement may develop into a mechanism for positive externality valuation such as better living quality in the neighborhood [4]. The private sector participation project, the local economy vitalization project, and the local economy operation project can either be led by the public sector or in partnership with the private sector.

This study suggested that local governments, the NHUF, and private or community enterprises consider customized financial support for neighborhood regeneration. Based on the financial support, policy and local governance can be improved. For instance, the housing vitalization project needed the lease fund. The private sector participation project required the facility fund. The local living improvement project required financial support from the facility fund. The local economy operation project needed financial support from the lease fund.

6.2. Practical Implications

This study has multiple practical implications drawn from the projects’ differential financial support. Practical implications for each neighborhood regeneration project can be summarized as follows.

The housing vitalization project needs financial support from the facility fund and the real estate fund. The housing vitalization project needs the public sector’s involvement. Therefore, the project entity in neighborhood regeneration needs to be a public entity rather than a private entity [50]. The project needs public funding sources from the NHUF and private capital. Real estate that needs finance and the private sector’s capital can be supported by the NHUF [35].

The private sector participation project requires all types of financial support, particularly the private sector’s proactive participation in neighborhood regeneration. The shortage of private sector participation requires the public sector’s participation in the beginning stage [51].

The facility fund can primarily support the local economy vitalization project. The facility fund and the lease fund can support the items of the local economy vitalization project. This project requires cooperation between the public and private sectors to grow together. Public and private entities can partner to provide affordable neighborhood spaces [4].

The local living improvement project needs to be supported by the facility fund. This project can be led by a public entity. The public sector needs to invest in the physical infrastructure of neighborhood regeneration projects.

The facility and operating funds mainly support the local living network project. This project can also be led by a public entity. The public sector as a financial source is necessary because the project needs social, economic, and cultural networks for neighborhood regeneration projects [52]. Local governments with low financial independence should secure funding sources through multiple financial support channels.

The operating fund can mainly support the local economy operation project. Support is needed from the lease and operating funds, depending on the project items. This project can mainly be led by the public sector but proceeded with partial participation of the private sector.

This study has some limitations. First, this study excluded housing readjustment projects that focus on small-scale housing readjustment [53]. As the housing vitalization project was the most crucial goal and direction of neighborhood regeneration, further research needs to develop financial support plans for small-scaled housing readjustment projects. Second, although this study suggested financial support plans are for the six projects primarily, financial support directions for specific project items can vary. Hence, an analysis of tailored financial support plans for project items may be needed. Future research can discover effective financial support plans, policies, and implications. Such attempts may contribute to vitalizing neighborhood regeneration projects in the future.

6.3. Conclusions

This study suggested customized financial support for neighborhood regeneration. The current analysis shed new light on specifying neighborhood regeneration projects and financial support funds. The effectiveness of neighborhood regeneration can be optimal when financial support is suitable. The customized financial support plans may apply to other neighborhood regeneration projects. This study contributes to developing customized financial support for neighborhood regeneration. This neighborhood regeneration with tailored financial support funds may generate quality adaptive urbanism [4]. This study offers a new financial support pattern for neighborhood regeneration. The solutions provided in this study may help build a healthier and more sustainable form of neighborhood development.