Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Neighbourhood Sustainability
2.2. Neighbourhood Satisfaction and Liveability
2.3. Relationships among Neighbourhood Sustainability, Satisfaction, and Moving Intention
2.4. Neighbourhood Types in Transitional China
3. Methodology
3.1. Case Selection
- It should belong to one of the three representative types of transitional neighbourhoods: traditional danwei, resettlement neighbourhood, and commodity housing [72];
- It should be one of the pilot neighbourhoods that received municipal funding to implement ‘sustainable neighbourhood building’;
- Its spatial scale should be roughly equivalent to a circle area with a radius of 400 m, which is a 5 min walking distance [29].
3.2. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
- Mentioned in fewer than three references (either academic or industrial);
- The setting of the criteria does not fit the research objective of this study;
- The application scenario does not match the scale and profile of neighbourhoods in China;
- Overlapping with others.
3.3. Data and Model Analysis
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Respondent Profile, Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Significance Test
4.2. Associations between Sustainability and Neighbourhood Satisfaction
4.3. Associations between Sustainability and Moving Intention
5. Contextual Framework and Policy Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Neighbourhood Sustainability Elements | Factors | References | |
---|---|---|---|
Academic | Industrial | ||
Social elements | Affordable and diverse provision of housing | [31,33,110] | [111,112,113] |
Delivery of services, provision of facilities and amenities and their convenience | [31,93,114,115] | [111,112,116] | |
Cultural events and festivals | [117,118] | [119] | |
Building security | [120,121,122] | [119] | |
Demographic needs and priorities | [115,123,124] | [112] | |
Surroundings, internal connectivity, and inclusive access | [110,125,126,127,128,129,130] | [113,116] | |
Social interaction and functional mixing | [31,131,132] | [111,116] | |
Sense of belonging | [133,134] | [111] | |
Universal access | [125,126,135] | [111,113] | |
Economic elements | Cooperative activities | [33,136] | [119] |
Information-service performance | [137,138] | [116,119] | |
Local training and skills | [115,139] | [112] | |
Housing and job proximity | [115,140] | [113] | |
Accessible trade market | [141] | [111] | |
Environmental elements | Multiple types of transit | [31] | [111,112,113,116,119] |
Light and dust pollution | [142] | [112,113,143] | |
Access to public transport | [31,115,125,126] | [112,113,116] | |
Public transport facilities | [115,144,145] | [112,113,116,143] | |
Resource Cycling and water-circulation system and reused infrastructure | [115,146] | [113,116,119,143] | |
Outdoor air quality | [35] | [111,112,143] | |
Ecological and biodiversity | [147] | [111,112,119,143] | |
Quality of open space | [33,115] | [111,112,116] | |
Outdoor thermal environment | [148] | [111,112,113] | |
Noise | [36,38,149,150] | [111,112,116,143] | |
Institutional Element | Community engagement in planning and management | [38,115,151,152] | [111,112,113,116,119] |
Collaborative system for area management | [115,153,154] | [112,119] |
Neighbourhood Type | Case Name | Common Poor Sustainability Performance | Respective Different Socioeconomic and Sustainable Threats | Sustainability Factors Associated with Residential Satisfaction | Sustainability Factors Associated with Moving Intention |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Danwei traditional | Yulin Neighbourhood |
|
|
|
|
Resettlement | Xingyue Neighbourhood |
|
|
| |
Commodity housing | Jinyang Neighbourhood |
|
|
|
Yulin Neighbourhood (Danwei) | Xingyue Neighbourhood (Resettlement) | Jinyang Neighbourhood (Commodity Housing) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Principles to Be Retained (A) | Principles to Be Enhanced (B) | Principles to Be Urgently Assured (C) | Principles to Be Retained (A) | Principles to Be Enhanced (B) | Principles to Be Urgently Assured (C) | Principles to Be Retained (A) | Principles to Be Enhanced (B) | Principles to Be Urgently Assured (C) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
- United Nation (UN). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision-Highlights; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- López Moreno, E.; Bazoglu, N.; Mboup, G.; Warah, R. State of the World’s Cities 2008–2009: Harmonious Cities; UNHABITAT, Earthscan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lowe, M.; Whitzman, C.; Badland, H.; Davern, M.; Aye, L.; Hes, D.; Butterworth, I.; Giles-Corti, B. Planning Healthy, Liveable and Sustainable Cities: How Can Indicators Inform Policy? Urban. Policy Res. 2015, 33, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood sustainability assessment: Insights from a comparative case study. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newton, P.W. Liveable and sustainable? Socio-Technical challenges for twenty-First-Century cities. J. Urban Technol. 2012, 19, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuman, M. The Compact City Fallacy. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2005, 25, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Haan, F.J.; Ferguson, B.C.; Adamowicz, R.C.; Johnstone, P.; Brown, R.; Wong, T.H. The needs of society: A new understanding of transitions, sustainability and liveability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 85, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Jansson, Å.; Rockström, J.; Olsson, P.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Crépin, A.-S.; Daily, G.; Danell, K.; Ebbesson, J. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 2011, 40, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andersson, E.; Tengö, M.; McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P. Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portney, K.E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Leach, J.M.; Braithaite, P.A.; Lee, S.E.; Bouch, C.J.; Hunt, D.V.; Rogers, C.D. Measuring urban sustainability and liveability performance: The city analysis methodology. Int. J. Complex. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2016, 1, 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mouratidis, K. Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban. Stud. 2017, 55, 2408–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitrany, M. High density neighborhoods: Who enjoys them? GeoJournal 2005, 64, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choguill, C.L. Developing sustainable neighbourhoods. Habitat Int. 2008, 32, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girardet, H. Cities People Planet: Liveable Cities for a Sustainable World; Academy Press: West Sussex, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Howley, P.; Scott, M.; Redmond, D. An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing: Exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities 2009, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.H.; Pagliara, F.; Preston, J. The Intention to Move and Residential Location Choice Behaviour. Urban. Stud. 2005, 42, 1621–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Yung, E.H.K.; Chan, E.H.W. Towards Sustainable Neighborhoods: Challenges and Opportunities for Neighborhood Planning in Transitional Urban China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shi, Q.; Yu, T.; Zuo, J.; Lai, X. Challenges of developing sustainable neighborhoods in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 972–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silas, J.; Ernawati, R. Liveability of Settlements by People in the Kampung of Surabaya. In Proceedings of the 19th International CIB World Building Congress, Construction and Society, Brisbane, QUT, Australia, 5–9 May 2013; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, T.; Zhang, F.; Wu, F. Place attachment in gated neighbourhoods in China: Evidence from Wenzhou. Geoforum 2018, 92, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zhang, F.; Wu, F. Neighbourhood cohesion under the influx of migrants in Shanghai. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2017, 49, 407–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Dong, G.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, W. Does satisfactory neighbourhood environment lead to a satisfying life? An investigation of the association between neighbourhood environment and life satisfaction in Beijing. Cities 2018, 74, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallbaum, H.; Krank, S.; Teloh, R. Prioritizing Sustainability Criteria in Urban Planning Processes: Methodology Application. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2011, 137, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kates, R.W.; Clark, W.C.; Corell, R.; Hall, J.M.; Jaeger, C.C.; Lowe, I.; Mccarthy, J.J.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Bolin, B.; Dickson, N.M. Chapter 8. Science 2001, 292, 641–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN-HABITAT. Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016; United Nations Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Grybaitė, V.; Tvaronavičienė, M. Estimation of sustainable development: Germination on institutional level. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2008, 9, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ciegis, R.; Ramanauskiene, J.; Martinkus, B. The concept of sustainable development and its use for sustain-ability scenarios. Eng. Econ. 2009, 62, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Sipe, N.G.; Evans, R.; Pitot, M. A GIS—Based land use and public transport accessibility indexing model. Aust. Plan. 2007, 44, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gilbert, R.; Stevenson, D.; Girardet, H.; Stren, R. Making Cities Work: Role of Local Authorities in the Urban Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Teriman, S. Neighborhood sustainability assessment: Evaluating resi-dential development sustainability in a developing country context. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2570–2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Komeily, A.; Srinivasan, R. A need for balanced approach to neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 18, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 1573–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodland, R. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1995, 26, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel-Yan, J.; Kennedy, C.; Saiz, S.; Pressnail, K. Toward sustainable neighbourhoods: The need to consider infrastructure interactions. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2005, 32, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bijoux, D.; Lietz, K.; Saville-Smith, K. Measuring Neighbourhood Sustainability in New Zealand. In Proceedings of the UPE7: World Class Cities-Environmental Impacts and Planning Opportunities, Bangkok, Thailand, 3–5 January 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Carmichael, J.; Talwar, S.; Tansey, J.; Robinson, J. Where Do We Want to Be? Making Sustainability Indicators Integrated, Dynamic and Participatory. Community Indic. Meas. Syst. 2005, 178, 178–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meek, J.W. Adaptive intermediate structures and local sustainability advances. Public Adm. Q. 2008, 32, 415–432. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Q.; Yung, E.H.K.; Chan, E.H.W. Comparison of perceived sustainability among different neighbourhoods in transitional China: The case of Chengdu. Habitat Int. 2020, 103, 102204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grogan-Kaylor, A.; Woolley, M.; Mowbray, C.; Reischl, T.M.; Gilster, M.; Karb, R.; Macfarlane, P.; Gant, L.; Alaimo, K. Predictors of Neighborhood Satisfaction. J. Community Pr. 2006, 14, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howley, P.; Scott, M.; Redmond, D. Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 847–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hipp, J. What is the ‘Neighbourhood’ in Neighbourhood Satisfaction? Comparing the Effects of Structural Characteristics Measured at the Micro-neighbourhood and Tract Levels. Urban. Stud. 2010, 47, 2517–2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Permentier, M.; Bolt, G.; Van Ham, M. Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neigh-bourhood reputation. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 977–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corrado, G.; Corrado, L.; Santoro, E. On the Individual and Social Determinants of Neighbourhood Satisfaction and Attachment. Reg. Stud. 2013, 47, 544–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marans, R.W.; Rodgers, W. Toward an understanding of community satisfaction. Metrop. Am. Contemp. Perspect. N. Y. 1975, 3, 299–352. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, A.; Converse, P.E.; Rodgers, W.L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Bruin, M.J.; Cook, C.C. Understanding Constraints and Residential Satisfaction Among Low-Income Single-Parent Families. Environ. Behav. 1997, 29, 532–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, M. Determinants of Residential Satisfaction: Ordered Logit vs. Regression Models. Growth Chang. 1999, 30, 264–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkes, A.; Kearns, A.; Atkinson, R. What Makes People Dissatisfied with their Neighbourhoods? Urban. Stud. 2002, 39, 2413–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirgy, M.J.; Cornwell, T. How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of Life. Soc. Indic. Res. 2002, 59, 79–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, N.; Haarhoff, E.; Beattie, L. Enhancing liveability through urban intensification: The idea and role of neighbourhood. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2018, 4, 1442117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Kamp, I.; Leidelmeijer, K.; Marsman, G.; De Hollander, A. Urban environmental quality and human well-being: Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haarhoff, E.; Beattie, L.; Dupuis, A. Does higher density housing enhance liveability? Case studies of housing intensification in Auckland. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2016, 2, 1243289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamersma, M.; Tillema, T.; Sussman, J.; Arts, J. Residential satisfaction close to highways: The impact of accessibility, nuisances and highway adjustment projects. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 59, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, T.R.; Wiek, A.; Sarewitz, D.; Robinson, J.; Olsson, L.; Kriebel, D.; Loorbach, D. The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, R.; Comeau, L.A. Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1301–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabin, P. The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future; HeinOnline: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Desa, U. Achieving Sustainable Development and Promoting Development Cooperation; Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, United Nations Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Speare, A. Residential Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable in Residential Mobility. Demography 1974, 11, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampson, R.J.; Raudenbush, S.W.; Earls, F. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science 1997, 277, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silver, E.; Miller, L.L. Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods. Criminology 2004, 42, 551–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Permentier, M.; van Ham, M.; Bolt, G. Neighbourhood Reputation and the Intention to Leave the Neighbourhood. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2009, 41, 2162–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Breitung, W. Differentiated neighbourhood governance in transitional urban China: Comparative study of two housing estates in Guangzhou. In Neighbourhood Governance in Urban China; Edward Elgar Publishing: Hong Kong, China, 2014; pp. 145–166. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.-M.; Zhu, Y.; Li, L. Neighborhood Type, Gatedness, and Residential Experiences in Chinese Cities: A Study of Guangzhou. Urban. Geogr. 2012, 33, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.; Zou, Y. Un-gating the gated community: The spatial restructuring of a resettlement neighborhood in Nanjing. Cities 2017, 62, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, Y. Danwei-based Chinese cities’ internal life-space structure: A case study of Lanzhou city. Geogr. Res. 1996, 15, 30–38. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, R.; Wong, T.-C. The allocation and misallocation of economic housing in Beijing: Target groups versus market forces. Habitat Int. 2015, 49, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flock, R.; Breitung, W.; Lixun, L. Commodity Housing and the Socio-spatial Structure in Guangzhou. China Perspect. 2013, 2013, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, F. Governing China’s Peasant Migrants: Building Xiaokang Socialism and Harmonious Society; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2009; pp. 50–74. [Google Scholar]
- Miao, P. Deserted Streets in a Jammed Town: The Gated Community in Chinese Cities and Its Solution. J. Urban. Des. 2003, 8, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.J.; Wu, F. Restructuring the Chinese City: Changing Society, Economy and Space; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y.; Breitung, W.; Li, S.-M. The Changing Meaning of Neighbourhood Attachment in Chinese Commodity Housing Estates: Evidence from Guangzhou. Urban. Stud. 2012, 49, 2439–2457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, B.A.; Oropesa, S.; Kanan, J.W. Neighborhood Context and Residential Mobility. Demography 1994, 31, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschfield, A.; Bowers, K. The Effect of Social Cohesion on Levels of Recorded Crime in Disadvantaged Areas. Urban. Stud. 1997, 34, 1275–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Wu, W.; Zhong, W.; Zeng, G.; Wang, S. The reshaping of social relations: Resettled rural residents in Zhenjiang, China. Cities 2017, 60, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. The hukou system as China’s main regulatory framework for temporary rural-urban migration and its recent changes. Die Erde J. Geogr. Soc. Berl. 2012, 143, 233–247. [Google Scholar]
- Fujita, M.; Mori, T. Frontiers of the New Economic Geography. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2005, 84, 377–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bosker, M.; Brakman, S.; Garretsen, H.; Schramm, M. Relaxing Hukou: Increased labor mobility and China’s economic geography. J. Urban. Econ. 2012, 72, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, F.; Liu, Y. Interpreting Chinese Hukou System from a Foucauldian Perspective. Urban. Policy Res. 2018, 36, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y. Chengdu Comprehensively Launch Neighbourhood Planning Action for Covering Ninety Percent of All Neighbourhood Citywide Within Two Years; Sichuan Daily: Chengdu, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Seawright, J.; Gerring, J. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Case Stud. 2008, 61, II213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Li, Y.; Geng, W.; Wang, X.; Liu, Y. The Exploration of a Neighborhood Planning Scheme Following the Rule of “Harmonious Coexistence of Pluralism and Difference”—Case Studies of Yulin and Caojiaxiang Neighborhoods in Chengdu. J. Hum. Settl. West China 2015, 30, 61–66. [Google Scholar]
- Kotrlik, J.; Higgins, C. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 2001, 19, 43. [Google Scholar]
- Wancata, P.J.; Krautgartner, M.; Alexandrowicz, R.; Meise, U. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) in general hospitals: Selecting a set of items using a stepwise hierarchical procedure. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2001, 10, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, H.; Lee, W. The level of collapse we are allowed: Comparison of different response scales in Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Biom. Biostat. Int. J. 2016, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansell, C.; Doberstein, C.; Henderson, H.; Siddiki, S.; Hart, P. T Understanding inclusion in collaborative governance: A mixed methods approach. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 570–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efroymson, M. Multiple Regression Analysis. Mathematical Methods for Digital Computers; Ralston, A., Wilf, H.S., Eds.; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Hocking, R.R. A Biometrics Invited Paper. The Analysis and Selection of Variables in Linear Regression. Biomedicine 1976, 32, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, K.; Elliott, S.; Law, M.; Eyles, J.; Jerrett, M.; Keller-Olaman, S. Linking perceptions of neigh-bourhood to health in Hamilton, Canada. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2004, 58, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sugiyama, T.; Leslie, E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Owen, N. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. Community Health Always 2008, 62, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sugiyama, T.; Thompson, C.W. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forrest, R.; Yip, N.-M. Neighbourhood and Neighbouring in Contemporary Guangzhou. J. Contemp. China 2007, 16, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, E.H.W.; Lee, G.K.L. Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 85, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Power, S.; Brown, C. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, H.W.; Shen, G.Q.; Wang, H. A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Forrest, R.; Kearns, A. Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood. urban Stud. 2001, 38, 2125–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plas, J.M.; Lewis, S.E. Environmental factors and sense of community in a planned town. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1996, 24, 109–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Guo, F.; Wang, H. Domestic property and housing class in contemporary urban China. Neth. J. Hous. Environ. Res. 2018, 33, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas, M. Well-Being and the Complexity of Poverty: A Subjective Well-Being Approach; Research Paper; UNU-WIDER, United Nations University (UNU): Tokyo, Japan, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Tipple, G. Housing policy-making in Africa: Ten common assumptions. Habitat Int. 2015, 49, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruth, M.; Franklin, R.S. Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 49, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yuan, Y.; Kaili, D.; Xinyu, C.; Xinyi, W. A Review of Neighborhood Satisfaction. Urban Dev. Stud. 2018, 25, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Bint-E-Waheed, H.; Nadeem, O. Perception of security risk in gated and non-gated communities in Lahore, Pakistan. Neth. J. Hous. Environ. Res. 2020, 35, 897–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, A.; Bardhan, R. Socio-Physical liveability through socio-spatiality in low-income resettlement archetypes—A case of slum rehabilitation housing in Mumbai, India. Cities 2020, 105, 102840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Wang, Z.; Cao, M.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Qiu, Y. Neighbourhood satisfaction in rural resettlement residential communities: The case of Suqian, China. Hous. Stud. 2020, 23, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Wang, F. Contributions of the Usage and Affective Experience of the Residential Environment to Residential Satisfaction. Hous. Stud. 2016, 31, 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcez, C.A.G.; De Souza Vianna, J.N. Brazilian biodiesel policy: Social and environmental considerations of sustainability. Energy 2009, 34, 645–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, C.A. Ten Years of the Community Center Movement: Department of Recreation; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1921. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, C. A Pattern Language; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Chiu, R.L.H. Social equity in housing in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: A social sustainability perspective. Sustain. Dev. 2002, 10, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Hong Kong Green Building Council. Beam Plus Neighbourhood. 2016. Available online: https://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/beam-plus/beam-plus-neighbourhood/index.jsp (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Building Research Establishment. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. 2012. Available online: https://www.breeam.com/resources/homes-and-residential/breeam-communities-international-2012/#:~:text=BREEAM%20Communities%20International%20(2012)%20is,of%20large%2Dscale%20development%20plans (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- United States Green Building Council. Leed for Neighbourhood Development. 2018. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Lew, A.A.; Ng, P.T.; Ni, C.-C.; Wu, T.-C. Community sustainability and resilience: Similarities, differences and indicators. Tour. Geogr. 2016, 18, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turcu, C. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 695–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- German Sustainable Building Council. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen. 2012. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/districts/index.php (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Tweed, C.; Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. urban Plan. 2007, 83, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Littig, B.; Griessler, E. Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE). Available online: https://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/toolsE_urbanhtm (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Russo, F.; Comi, A. A classification of city logistics measures and connected impacts. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6355–6365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuthill, M. Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martens, P. Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustain. Sci. Pr. Policy 2006, 2, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ancell, S.; Thompson-Fawcett, M. The Social Sustainability of Medium Density Housing: A Conceptual Model and Christchurch Case Study. Hous. Stud. 2008, 23, 423–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porta, S.; Renne, J.L. Linking urban design to sustainability: Formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. urban Des. Int. 2005, 10, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barton, H. Sustainable Communities the Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2000, 2, 169–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, E. The compact city: Just or just com pact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Stud. 2000, 37, 1969–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 13, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lyndhurst, B. Research Report 11: Environmental Exclusion Review; Office of the Deputy: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lyndhurst, B. Building Research Establishment. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method for Communities. 2004. Available online: https://www.breeam.com/communitiesmanual/ (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- Macintyre, S.; Maciver, S.; Sooman, A. Area, class and health; should we be focusing on places or people? And health; should we be focusing on places or people? J. Soc. Policy 1993, 22, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramley, G.; Power, S. Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2009, 36, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, N. Health, Well-Being and Open Space; Edinburgh College of Art and Heriot-Watt University: Edinburgh, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, Z.; Bragg, E. The Power of Connection: Sustainable Lifestyles and Sense of Place. Ecopsychology 2012, 4, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yung, E.H.K.; Chan, E.H.W.; Xu, Y. Sustainable Development and the Rehabilitation of a Historic Urban District—Sustainability in the Case of Tianzifang in Shanghai. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 22, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buys, L.; Barnett, K.R.; Miller, E.; Bailey, C. Smart housing and social sustainability: Learning from the residents of Queensland’s Research House. Aust. J. Emerg. Technol. Soc. 2005, 3, 43–57. [Google Scholar]
- Green, G.; Grimsley, M.; Stafford, B. The Dynamics of Neighbourhood Sustainability; Joseph Rowntree Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable-Smart-Resilient-Low carbon-Eco-Knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.F.M.; Nijkamp, P. Smart Cities in Europe. J. urban Technol. 2011, 18, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, S.; Church, C. The United Kingdom Mainstreaming, Mutating or Expiring? Sustainable Communities in Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, P.; Lü, B.; de Roo, G. Impact of the jobs-housing balance on urban commuting in Beijing in the transformation era. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Cheng, J.; Wu, S. Evaluating community accessibility for sustainable urban regeneration: A conceptual framework. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Responsive Manufacturing-Green Manufacturing (ICRM 2010), Ningbo, China, 11–13 January 2010; pp. 11–13. [Google Scholar]
- Dales, J.H. Pollution, Property & Prices: An Essay in Policy-Making and Economics; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.Z.; Genovese, P.V.; LI, J.W.; Teng, R.Y. The analysis of international green residential district estimate system: Taking the LEED, Chinese ecological residential technology assessment manual and others for example. Sichuan Build. Sci. 2013, 39, 2. [Google Scholar]
- WilliamS, K.; Dair, C. A framework of sustainable behaviours that can be enabled through the design of neighbourhood-scale developments. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stubbs, M. Car Parking and Residential Development: Sustainability, Design and Planning Policy, and Public Perceptions of Parking Provision. J. urban Des. 2002, 7, 213–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messari-Becker, L.; Mettke, A.; Knappe, F.; Storck, U.; Bollinger, K.; Grohmann, M. Recycling concrete in practice—A chance for sustainable resource management. Struct. Concr. 2014, 15, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruis, V.; Visscher, H.; Kleinhans, R.J. Sustainable Neighbourhood Transformation; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 11. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y.; Lin, B. Sustainable housing and urban construction in China. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 1287–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siew, R.Y.J. A review of sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) for communities. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2014, 5, 39–52. [Google Scholar]
- Carmichael, J.; Talwar, S.; Tansey, J.; Robinson, J. Community Indicators Measuring Systems; Routledge: London, UK, 2005; pp. 178–204. [Google Scholar]
- Ratcliffe, P. “Race”, Ethnicity and Housing Decisions: Rational Choice Theory and the Choice-Constraint Debate. Rational Choice Theory: Resisting Colonisation; Routledge: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Pendlebury, J.; Townshend, T.; Gilroy, R. The Conservation of English Cultural Built Heritage: A Force for Social Inclusion? Int. J. Heritage Stud. 2004, 10, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bäckstrand, K. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur. Environ. 2006, 16, 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kearns, A.; Forrest, R. Social Cohesion and Multilevel Urban Governance. urban Stud. 2000, 37, 995–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aspects | Sustainability | Liveability | |
---|---|---|---|
Resemblance | The characteristic of definition | Intrinsically normative, subjective, and ambiguous | |
Political influence | Has key framing influences on public policy in development | ||
General objective | They both have a profound focus on needs and an ability to satisfy them | ||
Discrepancy | The relationship it studied | Not only current generation but also long-term, intergenerational conditions | Environment and quality of life, especially focusing on the needs of the present |
Human-centric emphasis | Less or indirect human-centric emphases | More and direct human-centric emphases | |
Theoretical implication | Provides a benefit to societal and external systems | A reflection of ‘quality of life’, ‘well-being’, and/or the satisfaction of the needs of ‘the people’. |
Yulin | Xingyue | Jinyang | |
---|---|---|---|
No. of valid responses | 160 (10 invalid) | 160 (10 invalid) | 162 (8 invalid) |
Gender | |||
Male | 72 (45%) | 64 (40%) | 78 (48.1%) |
Female | 88 (55%) | 96 (60%) | 84 (51.9%) |
Age Group | |||
18–35 | 46 (28.7%) | 48 (30.0%) | 72 (44.4%) |
36–50 | 41 (25.6%) | 50 (31.3%) | 46 (28.4%) |
51–65 | 38 (23.8%) | 44 (27.5%) | 32 (19.8%) |
66–80 | 27 (16.9%) | 18 (11.25%) | 10 (6.2%) |
80 or above | 8 (5.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.2%) |
Status of residence | |||
Owner | 88 (52.5%) | 93 (58.1%) | 113 (69.8%) |
tenant | 72 (47.5%) | 67 (41.9%) | 49 (30.2%) |
Hukou type | |||
Local | 84 (52.5%) | 95 (59.4%) | 91 (56.2%) |
Nonlocal | 76 (47.5%) | 64 (40%) | 71 (43.8%) |
Missing response | 1 | ||
Duration of residence | |||
Less than 1 year | 23 (14.4%) | 24 (15.0%) | 38 (23.5%) |
1 to 3 years | 28 (17.5%) | 35 (21.9%) | 46 (28.4%) |
4 to 6 years | 20 (12.5%) | 44 (27.5%) | 25 (15.4%) |
7 to 10 years | 17 (10.6%) | 47 (29.4%) | 24 (14.8%) |
Longer than 10 years | 72 (45%) | 10 (6.3%) | 29 (17.9%) |
Education | |||
Lower than primary school | 13 (8.1%) | 32 (20.0%) | 8 (4.9%) |
Elementary school | 42 (26.3%) | 23 (14.4%) | 15 (9.3%) |
Secondary school | 56 (35%) | 61 (38.1%) | 39 (24.1%) |
College or above | 49 (30.6%) | 44 (27.5%) | 100 (61.7%) |
Monthly Income | |||
2000 or below | 50 (31.3%) | 75 (46.9%) | 24 (14.8%) |
2000 to 4000 | 73 (45.6%) | 51 (31.9%) | 39 (24.1%) |
4000 to 6000 | 23 (14.4%) | 24 (15.0%) | 46 (28.4%) |
6000 to 8000 | 11 (6.9%) | 9 (5.6%) | 25 (15.4%) |
8000 or above | 3 (1.9%) | 1 (0.6%) | 28 (17.3%) |
Family monthly expenditure | |||
3000 or below | 85 (53.1%) | 94 (58.8%) | 41 (25.3%) |
3000 to 5000 | 48 (30%) | 43 (26.9%) | 42 (25.9%) |
5000 to 7000 | 13 (8.1%) | 20 (12.5%) | 38 (23.5%) |
7000 to 9000 | 7 (4.4%) | 1 (0.6%) | 16 (9.9%) |
9000 above | 7 (4.4%) | 2 (1.3%) | 25 (15.4%) |
Commuting time of Job to Housing | |||
Less than 5 min | 32 (20.5%) | 10 (6.8%) | 20 (12.4%) |
5 to 15 min | 39 (25.0%) | 32 (21.8%) | 51 (31.7%) |
15 to 30 min | 43 (27.6%) | 53 (36.1%) | 51 (31.7%) |
30 min to 1 h | 34 (21.8%) | 33 (22.4%) | 27 (16.8%) |
Longer than 1 h | 8 (5.1%) | 19 (12.9%) | 12 (7.4%) |
Invalid response | 4 | 13 | 1 |
Commuting time between home and transport station | |||
Less than 3 min | 33 (20.6%) | 42 (26.3%) | 30 (18.7%) |
4 to 10 min | 88 (55.0%) | 68 (42.5%) | 111 (69.4%) |
11 to 20 min | 27 (16.9%) | 33 (20.6%) | 15 (9.4%) |
Longer than 20 min | 12 (7.5%) | 17 (10.6%) | 4 (2.5%) |
Intention to stay living here or not | |||
Yes | 130 (81.3%) | 135 (84.4%) | 110 (67.9%) |
No | 30 (18.8%) | 25 (15.6%) | 52 (32.1%) |
Overall neighbourhood satisfaction | |||
Less than satisfied | 71 (44.4%) | 62 (38.8%) | 98 (60.5%) |
Satisfied | 89 (55.6%) | 98 (61.3%) | 64 (39.5%) |
Sustainability Performance | Yulin (1) | Xingyue (2) | Jinyang (3) | ANOVA (Sig) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of Valid Surveys | N = 160 | N = 160 | N = 162 | ||
Social Factors | |||||
Accessible and convenient amenities | Good performance in all 3 (percent > 85% and mean value > 4) | 91.3% (4.17) | 86.3% (4.01) | 91.4% (4.36) | F = 7.535 (0.001) |
Often participating in collective activities | Poor performance in all 3 (percent < 45% and mean value < 3) | 25.6% (2.52) | 33.8% (2.68) | 18.5% (2.35) | F = 2.794 (0.062) |
Opportunity to have social interaction within and without neighbourhoods | Variation in performance > 0.4 or percent difference >20% (between any two) | 54.4% (3.30) | 75% (3.76) | 52.5% (3.27) | F = 9.000 (0.000) |
Preference of the collective living pattern | 68.6% (3.77) | 78.1% (4.06) | 55.0% (3.54) | F = 10.282 (0.000) | |
Economic Factors | |||||
Accessible grocery shopping and other consumption spaces near the neighbourhood | Good performance in all 3 (percent > 85% and mean value > 4) | 97.5% (4.49) | 99.4% (4.69) | 93.2% (4.42) | F = 9.346 (0.000) |
Attending economic activities within the neighbourhood. | Poor performance in all 3 (percent < 45% and mean value < 3) | 15.0% (2.22) | 34.4% (2.61) | 14.8% (2.07) | F = 8.437 (0.000) |
Satisfaction with public methods of information | Variation in performance > 0.4 or percent difference >20% (between any two) | 38.8% (3.19) | 69.4% (3.64) | 43.4% (3.22) | F = 10.397 (0.000) |
Environmental Factors | |||||
Acceptable distance to the public transport station | Good performance in all 3 (percent > 85% and mean value > 4) | 95.0% (4.33) | 89.4% (4.01) | 89.5% (4.30) | F = 8.713 (0.000) |
Institutional Factors | |||||
Opportunities to attend and express myself in the neighbourhood management meeting | Poor performance in all 3 (percent < 45% and value < 3) | 23.8% (2.28) | 22.5% (2.29) | 24.7% (2.43) | F = 0.759 (0.469) |
Benefits of engaging external parties in neighbourhood development | Good performance in all 3 (percent > 85% or mean value > 4) | 88.1% (3.45) | 90.0% (3.57) | 90.7% (3.39) | F = 1.536 (0.216) |
Overall satisfaction with neighbourhood life | 55.7% (3.59) | 61.3% (3.67) | 39.5% (3.31) | F = 10.731 (0.000) |
Dependent Variable: Neighbourhood Satisfaction Degree (Y 0, 1) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Yulin (Danwei) | Xinyue (Resettlement) | Jinyang (Commodity Housing) | ||||||||||||
B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. |
Social elements (A and B) | |||||||||||||||
Affordable house | 1. Sense of security | 1. Sense of security | None | ||||||||||||
0.249 | 0.107 | 5.421 | 0.020 | 0.794 | 0.292 | 7.392 | 0.007 | 0.638 | 0.208 | 9.381 | 0.002 | ||||
Sense of security | 2. Preference of neighbourhood’s big family vibe | 2. Regard myself as a member of the neighbourhood | |||||||||||||
0.373 | 0.116 | 10.346 | 0.001 | 0.538 | 0.244 | 4.844 | 0.028 | 0.583 | 0.190 | 9.376 | 0.002 | ||||
Economic elements (C) | |||||||||||||||
Participation in economic activities within the neighbourhood | None | None | None | ||||||||||||
0.226 | 0.089 | 6.429 | 0.011 | ||||||||||||
Environmental elements (D and E) | |||||||||||||||
Night lighting within neighbourhood | 3. Satisfactory fresh air | 3. Night lighting within neighbourhood | 1. Sense and habit of energy saving | ||||||||||||
0.298 | 0.127 | 5.552 | 0.018 | 0.652 | 0.240 | 7.377 | 0.007 | 1.268 | 0.300 | 17.841 | 0.000 | −0.420 | 0.188 | 5.024 | 0.025 |
Clean internal roads and adequate garbage bins | None | None | 2. Clean internal roads and adequate garbage bins | ||||||||||||
0.409 | 0.141 | 8.418 | 0.004 | 0.681 | 0.259 | 6.933 | 0.008 | ||||||||
Institutional elements (F) | |||||||||||||||
Responses from the CRC | 4. Solution achieved by informing the CRC of problems | 4. Solution achieved by informing the CRC of problems | 3. Responses from the CRC | ||||||||||||
0.360 | 0.106 | 11.472 | 0.001 | 0.706 | 0.204 | 11.932 | 0.001 | 0.685 | 0.247 | 7.701 | 0.006 | 0.487 | 0.187 | 6.802 | 0.009 |
None | 5. Acceptable variation of property management policy on property owner and tenants | None | 4. Benefits of engaging external parties in neighbourhood development | ||||||||||||
0.658 | 0.226 | 8.468 | 0.004 | 0.738 | 0.246 | 9.024 | 0.003 | ||||||||
Socioeconomic characteristics | |||||||||||||||
Age | Age | Family monthly expenditure | |||||||||||||
0.395 | 0.104 | 14.538 | 0.000 | 0.369 | 0.187 | 3.868 | 0.049 | None | 0.292 | 0.139 | 4.376 | 0.036 | |||
No significant results: Gender; status of residence; local or nonlocal Hukou; duration of residence; education; monthly income | |||||||||||||||
Cronbach’s Alpha | |||||||||||||||
0.810 | 0.799 | 0.835 | 0.817 |
Dependent Variable: Intention to Stay Living Here or Not (Y 0, 1) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Yulin (Danwei) | Xinyue (Resettlement) | Jinyang (Commodity Housing) | ||||||||||||
B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. |
Social Elements (A and B) | |||||||||||||||
Affordable house | Traffic needs of elderly, children, disabled, and other vulnerable groups | Regard myself as a member of the neighbourhood | Affordable house | ||||||||||||
0.349 | 0.120 | 8.415 | 0.004 | 0.915 | 0.354 | 6.698 | 0.010 | 1.357 | 0.294 | 21.247 | 0.000 | 0.674 | 0.187 | 13.042 | 0.000 |
Regard myself as a member of the neighbourhood | Opportunities to have social interaction and networking within and outside neighbourhoods | Sense of security | |||||||||||||
0.393 | 0.176 | 4.997 | 0.025 | ||||||||||||
0.760 | 0.288 | 6.690 | 0.008 | ||||||||||||
Regard myself as a member of the neighbourhood | |||||||||||||||
0.466 | 0.110 | 17.914 | 0.000 | 0.528 | 0.237 | 4.980 | 0.026 | ||||||||
Economic Elements (C) | |||||||||||||||
Useful skills training and study workshops in the neighbourhood | None | None | None | ||||||||||||
0.317 | 0.119 | 7.107 | 0.008 | ||||||||||||
Accessible grocery shopping near the neighbourhood | |||||||||||||||
0.517 | 0.209 | 6.108 | 0.013 | ||||||||||||
Environmental Elements (D and E) | |||||||||||||||
Pleasant and well-maintained biological environment | Internal and external connective road is safe | ||||||||||||||
None | 0.578 | 0.294 | 3.860 | 0.049 | 1.028 | 0.339 | 9.177 | 0.002 | |||||||
Institutional Elements (F) | |||||||||||||||
None | Responses from the CRC | Benefits of engaging external parties in neighbourhood development | |||||||||||||
0.490 | 0.243 | 4.057 | 0.044 | 0.539 | 0.217 | 6.172 | 0.013 | ||||||||
Socioeconomic Characteristics | |||||||||||||||
Local or nonlocal Hukou | Local or nonlocal Hukou | Gender | None | ||||||||||||
1.608 | 0.747 | 4.639 | 0.031 | ||||||||||||
Local or nonlocal Hukou | |||||||||||||||
0.840 (-) | 0.264 | 10.089 | 0.001 | 1.567 (-) | 0.598 | 6.873 | 0.009 | 1.584 (-) | 0.652 | 5.907 | 0.015 | ||||
Education | None | None | |||||||||||||
0.299 (-) | 0.136 | 4.875 | 0.027 | ||||||||||||
Overall neighbourhood satisfaction | |||||||||||||||
0.827 | 0.268 | 9.504 | 0.002 | ||||||||||||
Cronbach’s Alpha | |||||||||||||||
0.810 | 0.799 | 0.835 | 0.817 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Q.; Hiu-Kwan Yung, E.; Hon-Wan Chan, E. Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China. Land 2021, 10, 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111280
Zhang Q, Hiu-Kwan Yung E, Hon-Wan Chan E. Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China. Land. 2021; 10(11):1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111280
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Qi, Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung, and Edwin Hon-Wan Chan. 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China" Land 10, no. 11: 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111280
APA StyleZhang, Q., Hiu-Kwan Yung, E., & Hon-Wan Chan, E. (2021). Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China. Land, 10(11), 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111280