A Study of Resident Satisfaction and Factors That Influence Old Community Renewal Based on Community Governance in Hangzhou: An Empirical Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Urban Regeneration and Community Renewal
2.2. Resident Satisfaction with Community Renewal and Factors That Influence Satisfaction
2.3. Renewal of Old Communities Based on Community Governance
3. Methodology
3.1. Variables
3.2. Data
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Stepwise Regression
4.2. Parallel Line Test
4.3. Empirical Results
4.4. Discussion
4.4.1. Community Governance
4.4.2. Long-Term Mechanisms
4.4.3. Individual Characteristics
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sadiq, A.A.; Mehmet, K. Transforming slums in Ghana: The urban regeneration approach. Cities 2021, 116, 103284. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, K.; Zhao, S.; Zhao, R.; Li, S.; Pan, T.; Shi, Q. A case of refined design based on systematization of the sponge transformation project of the old community. China Water Wastewater 2020, 36, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, Y.; Chen, S.; Kong, J.; Han, B. Construction and Application of Performance Evaluation System for Renovation and Reform of Old Residential District. Constr. Econ. 2020, 41, 21–25. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y. Investigation of Residents’ Satisfaction Degree in Shanghai’s Old Residential Districts and Analysis of Influencing Factors. Urban Plan. Forum 2010, 3, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H. Research on Influencing Factors of Resident Satisfaction in Urban Regeneration Project. Master’s Thesis, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, J.; Zhou, D.; Nie, C.; Tian, J. A case of sponge transformation of old communities in Fuzhou. China Water Wastewater 2020, 36, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Li, D.; Gu, T.; Zhu, S. Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Governance and Influencing Factors in the Reconstruction of Old Community. Mod. Urban Res. 2020, 2, 19–25+41. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhang, X. Research on the introduction mechanism of property management after the renovation of old residential quarters based on WSR. Rev. Econ. Res. 2017, 34, 137–144. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, D. Research on the Contents and Countermeasures of renewal of Old Residential Districts in Cities. Urban Dev. Stud. 2017, 24, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; Xu, X. Social forces participate in the construction of a community governance system in the transformation of old communities. Urban Probl. 2020, 8, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X. Research on the renewal technology of the interior decoration of existing houses-constructing an industrialized prefabricated interior system. Build. Mater. Decor. 2020, 14, 88+90. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Zhang, X.; Wu, G. The network governance of urban regeneration: A comparative analysis of two cities in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 106, 105448. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, R. Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Stud. 1999, 36, 59–72. [Google Scholar]
- Marinetto, M. Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of community involvement. Sociology 2003, 37, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maginn, P.J. Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qual. Res. 2007, 7, 25–43. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, M.R. The politics of urban nature restoration: The case of Cheonggyecheon restoration in Seoul, Korea. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2010, 32, 145–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, U.S. Urban regeneration governance, community organizing, and artists’ commitment: A case study of Seongbuk-dong in Seoul. City Cult. Soc. 2020, 21, 100328. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, H.J.; Kang, M.G. Level of community participation in urban regeneration: Focusing on Haebangchon case, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. J. Korean Reg. Dev. Assoc. 2017, 29, 25–46. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, H.; Han, Y. Residents’ Participatory Grassroots Social Governance—Based on the Empirical Research of Guangning County; Guangdong. Soc. Sci. Guangdong 2015, 2, 214–221. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H. American Environmental Public Participation Theory and Its Enlightenment to China. Mod. Law Sci. 2015, 37, 148–156. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.; Wu, L. Appeal to stimulate publicity: The internal logic of residents’ participation in community governance based on the investigation of the case of elevator installation in the old community of H City. Zhejiang Soc. Sci. 2019, 9, 88–95+158. [Google Scholar]
- Hua, C. Research on the multi-agent collaborative governance model of urban communities—Based on the concept of “co-construction; co-governance and sharing”. J. Urban Stud. 2020, 41, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, W. Research on the Operation Mechanism of Urban Community Governance in my country. China Manag. Inf. 2021, 24, 213–214. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, H. The Dilemma and Optimal Strategies of Cooperative Governance of Multiple Subjects in Urban Community. Mod. Commun. 2020, 13, 254–256. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Yin, H.; Yao, C. On the Reconstruction of “Villages in the City” with Resident Participation—Taking Xi’an City as an Example. Hum. Geogr. 2005, 3, 72–75. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.; Zhang, P. Research on Improving the Dynamics of Residents Participating in Autonomy in Community Governance. J. Tianjin Adm. Inst. 2015, 17, 60–66+62. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J. The Participation in Urban Community Governance and Its Influencing Factors—An Empirical Analysis Based on Beijing Questionnaire. J. Tianjin Adm. Inst. 2017, 19, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, M. Communities as a unit of national governance: A case study of residents’ community participation and community cognition during the urban community building movement. Sociol. Stud. 2007, 4, 137–164+245. [Google Scholar]
- Butler, M. Relationship between community capitals and governance: The perspective of local actors in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. World Dev. Perspect. 2021, 21, 100294. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, N. The Realization Path of Community Governance Modernization from the Perspective of Role Theory—Based on the Research of Community Governance Practice in Lixia District; Jinan City. Dyn. Soc. Sci. 2021, 1, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
- Li, D.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, S. Research on Performance Evaluation of Fine Governance of Urban Old Community Based on PCA-DEA. Mod. Urban Res. 2020, 7, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
- Alam, A.G.; Priambada, K.; Tambunan, R.A.; Rahadian, J. Urban regeneration concept at slum-flat complex area by applying revitalization program. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 592, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruá, M.J.; Huedo, P.; Cabeza, M.; Saez, B.; Agost-Felip, R. A model to prioritise sustainable urban regeneration in vulnerable areas using SWOT and CAME methodologies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 1603–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingemar, E. Urban regeneration, Governance and Sustainable Development: More of the Same or New Paths? Sustainability 2022, 14, 1528. [Google Scholar]
- Jaroszyńska-Kirchmann, A.D. Urban regeneration in a New England Mill Town: Willimantic’s Puerto Rican Community and Redevelopment. Conn. Hist. Rev. 2021, 60, 82–119. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, P.; Yang, Y.; Li, Z. Theoretical Framework of Inclusive Urban Regeneration Combining Nature-Based Solutions with Society-Based Solutions. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2020, 146, 04020009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y. Research on the Performance Evaluation of the Comprehensive Renewal Project of Old Residential Quarters—Taking the Reconstruction of Old Residential Quarters in Shandong Province as an Example. Fisc. Sci. 2019, 1, 88–96+114. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, R. Influencing Factors of Residents’ Satisfaction in Urban Village Renewal: Taking Kaifeng as an Example. Urban Probl. 2017, 7, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, X. Study on the Residential Satisfaction of Migrant Workers in Public Rental Housing and Its Influencing Factors—A Case Study of Chongqing. Rural. Econ. 2018, 1, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
- Adriaanse, C.C.M. Measuring residential satisfaction: A residential environmental satisfaction scale. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2007, 22, 287–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, D.R.; Siu, O.-L.; Yeh, A.G.O.; Cheng, K.H.C. The impacts of dwelling conditions on older persons’ psychological well-being in Hong Kong: The mediating role of residential satisfaction. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004, 60, 2785–2797. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J. Evaluation of Urban Village Renewal Based on Villagers’ Satisfaction: Taking 1;425 Villagers Survey Samples in Zhengzhou City as an Example. Planners 2015, 31, 268–271. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H. An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors and Inter-city Differences of Social Housing Satisfaction. Rev. Econ. Res. 2018, 50, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Qu, J.; Wu, X. Research on the Influencing Factors of Urban Elderly Residence Satisfaction—Taking Wuxi and Yantai as Examples. J. Fujian Prov. Comm. Party Sch. CPC 2018, 4, 81–91. [Google Scholar]
- He, P. Conflict; dilemma; reflection: The basic subject of community governance and the construction of civil society. J. Shanghai Univ. 2009, 16, 20–31. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, F.; Ding, M.; Sun, P. Research on the Priority of Comprehensive Renewal of Urban Old Residential Districts Based on Residents’ Satisfaction: A Case Study of Harbin Well-off Residential District. Areal Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 75–79+91. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Ni, P. A Study on the Renewal Performance of Shanty Towns and the Impact of Government Behaviors—Based on the Investigation of Shanty Towns Reform Practices in Liaoning. Econ. Rev. J. 2016, 11, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, B.; Lee, J.; Chung, J. Double-edged cohesion: Multidimensional impacts of community governance’s cohesion in community-driven development. Community Dev. 2021, 52, 486–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojek, D.G.; Clemente, F.; Summers, G.F. Community Satisfaction: A Study of Contentment with Local Services. Rural. Sociol. 1975, 40, 177–192. [Google Scholar]
- Cibulka, J.G. Citizen participation in the governance of community mental health centers. Community Ment. Health J. 1981, 17, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiangbin, Y.; Xinyu, C.; Xiaoyan, H.; Xiaoshu, C. Applying the IPA–Kano model to examine environmental correlates of residential satisfaction: A case study of Xi’an. Habitat Int. 2016, 53, 461–472. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Wei, J.; Sui, M.; Lu, H. Research on Residential Satisfaction and Its Influencing Factors of Rural Elderly in Beijing. J. Eng. Manag. 2020, 34, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, N.; Gao, H. Research Status and Hot Topic Analysis of Domestic Old Community Governance—Visual Analysis Based on CiteSpace Knowledge Graph. J. Harbin Comm. Sch. CCP 2019, 3, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Van Holstein, E. Experiences of Participatory Planning in Contexts of Inequality: A Qualitative Study of Urban Renewal Projects in Colombia. Plan. Theory Pract. 2018, 19, 1146–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Mi, C.; Liu, J.; Li, S. Research on the Influencing Factors of the Evolution of the International Balance of Payments—Based on the Ordered Logistic Model. Theory Pract. Syst. Eng. 2017, 37, 1154–1162. [Google Scholar]
- Du, H. Residents’ satisfaction factors that affect the quality of residential environment in residential quarters: Taking some residential communities in the Pearl River Delta as an example. Urban Plan. Trans. 2002, 5, 48–54+80. [Google Scholar]
First-Level Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Assignments |
---|---|---|
Individual characteristics | Gender (X1) | 1 = male, 2 = female |
Age (X2) | 1 = 20–29, 2 = 30–39, 3 = 40–49, 4 = ≥50 years | |
Income (X3) | 1 = 3000 RMB and below, 2 = 3001–6000 RMB, 3 = 6001–9000 RMB, 4 = 9001–12,000 RMB, 5 = 12,001 RMB and above | |
Education (X4) | 1 = junior high school and below, 2 = high school/technical secondary school, 3 = junior college, 4 = bachelor’s degree and above | |
Family size (X5) | 1 = live alone, 2 = two, 3 = three, 4 = four and above | |
Job (X6) | 1 = professional technician/teacher/doctor, 2 = business managers, 3 = corporate staff, 4 = self-employed, 5 = private, 6 = staff of institutions, 7 = retirees, 8 = other | |
Housing property rights (X7) | 1 = renting, 2 = own housing | |
Length of residency (X8) | 1 =less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 5–19 years, 4 = 20 years and above | |
Community governance | Government messaging (X9) | 1 = never heard, 2 = know a little, 3 = general, 4 = know more, 5 = know very well |
Government subsidies (X10) | 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = general, 4 = much, 5 = very much | |
Credibility of community management organization (X11) | 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = general, 4 = high, 5 = very high | |
Work capacity of community management organization (X12) | 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = general, 4 = capable, 5 = very capable | |
Credibility of owners’ committee (X13) | 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = general, 4 = high, 5 = very high | |
Work capacity of owners’ committee (X14) | 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = general, 4 = capable, 5 = very capable | |
Residents’ attitudes towards policy (X15) | 1 = very unsupported, 2 = unsupported, 3 = general, 4 = supportive, 5 = very supportive | |
Residents’ willingness to participate in community governance (X16) | 1 = very unwilling, 2 = unwilling, 3 = general, 4 = willing to participate, 5 = very willing to participate | |
Whether to participate in a renewal (X17) | 1 = no, 2 = yes | |
Renewal costs (X18) | 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = general, 4 = high, 5 = very high | |
Renewal process | Channels for expressing resident opinions (X19) | 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = general, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied |
Influence of the renewal process (X20) | 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = general, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied | |
Openness and transparency of the renewal process (X21) | 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = general, 4 = high, 5 = very high | |
Long-term mechanisms | Housing conditions (X22) | 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = general, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied |
Community environment (X23) | ||
Infrastructure (X24) | ||
Maintenance (X25) |
No. of Residents | % | |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 335 | 38.6 |
Female | 533 | 61.4 |
Age | ||
20–29 | 157 | 18.1 |
30–39 | 164 | 18.9 |
40–49 | 127 | 14.6 |
≥50 | 420 | 48.4 |
Income | ||
≤3000 RMB | 231 | 26.6 |
3001–6000 RMB | 327 | 37.7 |
6001–9000 RMB | 163 | 18.8 |
9001–12,000 RMB | 83 | 9.6 |
≥12,001 RMB | 64 | 7.4 |
Education | ||
Junior high school and below | 320 | 36.9 |
High school/technical secondary school | 183 | 21.1 |
Junior college | 147 | 16.9 |
Bachelor’s degree and above | 218 | 25.1 |
Family size | ||
1 | 98 | 11.3 |
2 | 196 | 22.6 |
3 | 332 | 38.2 |
≥4 | 242 | 27.9 |
Housing property rights | ||
Own housing | 633 | 74.9 |
Renting | 218 | 25.1 |
Length of residence | ||
≤1 year | 93 | 10.7 |
1–5 years | 252 | 29.0 |
5–19 years | 263 | 30.3 |
≥20 years | 260 | 30.0 |
Total | 868 | 100 |
B | Std. Error | Standard B | t | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −1.01 | 0.126 | −7.992 | 0.000 | |
Credibility of owners’ committee | 0.162 | 0.042 | 0.154 | 3.878 | 0.000 |
Infrastructure | 0.180 | 0.027 | 0.173 | 6.739 | 0.000 |
Maintenance | 0.144 | 0.027 | 0.142 | 5.407 | 0.000 |
Residents’ attitude towards policy | 0.174 | 0.026 | 0.149 | 6.703 | 0.000 |
Length of residence | 0.125 | 0.022 | 0.110 | 5.682 | 0.000 |
Community environment | 0.112 | 0.025 | 0.119 | 4.558 | 0.000 |
Work capacity of owners’ committee | 0.162 | 0.040 | 0.160 | 4.097 | 0.000 |
Whether to participate in a renewal | 0.211 | 0.061 | 0.069 | 3.448 | 0.001 |
Residents’ willingness to participate in community governance | 0.087 | 0.024 | 0.094 | 3.665 | 0.000 |
Renewal cost | −0.073 | 0.020 | −0.095 | −3.612 | 0.000 |
Government subsidies | 0.061 | 0.025 | 0.065 | 2.483 | 0.013 |
Work capacity of community management organization | 0.069 | 0.029 | 0.067 | 2.386 | 0.017 |
Model | −2 Log Likelihood | Chi-Squared | df | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Null hypothesis | 2378.92 | |||
General | 1253.224 | 1125.696 | 62 | 0.000 |
Intercept only | 1253.224 | |||
Final | 1090.284b | 162.940c | 186 | 0.888 |
Variables | B | Exp (B) | Standard Error | Wald | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resident satisfaction (Y) | Very dissatisfied | −6.08 | —— | 0.912 | 44.472 | 0.000 |
Dissatisfied | −3.072 | —— | 0.857 | 12.84 | 0.000 | |
General | 0.313 | —— | 0.863 | 0.132 | 0.717 | |
Satisfied | 3.833 | —— | 0.871 | 19.355 | 0.000 | |
Individual characteristics | ||||||
Housing property rights | Renting | −0.578 * | 0.561 | 0.242 | 5.697 | 0.017 |
Length of residence | ≤1 year | −1.715 ** | 0.180 | 0.350 | 23.973 | 0.000 |
1–5 year | −0.879 ** | 0.415 | 0.257 | 11.732 | 0.001 | |
Community governance | ||||||
Government subsidies | Low | −1.157 ** | 0.314 | 0.375 | 9.498 | 0.002 |
General | −0.601 * | 0.548 | 0.286 | 4.42 | 0.036 | |
Work capacity of community management organization | Very poor | −2.697 ** | 0.067 | 0.702 | 14.755 | 0.000 |
Credibility of owners’ committee | Very low | −1.789 * | 0.167 | 0.901 | 3.947 | 0.047 |
Low | −1.683 ** | 0.186 | 0.547 | 9.46 | 0.002 | |
General | −1.664 ** | 0.189 | 0.371 | 20.073 | 0.000 | |
High | −0.995 ** | 0.370 | 0.298 | 11.162 | 0.001 | |
Work capacity of owners’ committee | Very poor | −1.753 * | 0.173 | 0.826 | 4.498 | 0.034 |
Poor | −2.244 ** | 0.106 | 0.53 | 17.897 | 0.000 | |
General | −1.151 ** | 0.316 | 0.354 | 10.564 | 0.001 | |
High | −1.426 ** | 0.240 | 0.293 | 23.694 | 0.000 | |
Residents’ attitude towards policy | Very unsupported | −5.363 ** | 0.005 | 0.985 | 29.638 | 0.000 |
Unsupported | −1.921 ** | 0.146 | 0.497 | 14.939 | 0.000 | |
General | −0.853 ** | 0.426 | 0.281 | 9.211 | 0.002 | |
Residents’ willingness to participate in community governance | Very unwilling | −2.015 ** | 0.133 | 0.494 | 16.661 | 0.000 |
Whether to participate in a renewal | No | −1.366 ** | 0.255 | 0.282 | 23.414 | 0.000 |
Renewal cost | Very low | 0.906 ** | 2.474 | 0.370 | 5.979 | 0.014 |
Long-term mechanisms | ||||||
Community environment | 0.395 ** | 1.484 | 0.092 | 18.388 | 0.000 | |
Infrastructure | 0.745 ** | 2.106 | 0.104 | 51.193 | 0.000 | |
Maintenance | 0.442 ** | 1.556 | 0.104 | 18.15 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Gao, H.; Wang, T.; Gu, S. A Study of Resident Satisfaction and Factors That Influence Old Community Renewal Based on Community Governance in Hangzhou: An Empirical Analysis. Land 2022, 11, 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091421
Gao H, Wang T, Gu S. A Study of Resident Satisfaction and Factors That Influence Old Community Renewal Based on Community Governance in Hangzhou: An Empirical Analysis. Land. 2022; 11(9):1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091421
Chicago/Turabian StyleGao, Hui, Ting Wang, and Shifeng Gu. 2022. "A Study of Resident Satisfaction and Factors That Influence Old Community Renewal Based on Community Governance in Hangzhou: An Empirical Analysis" Land 11, no. 9: 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091421
APA StyleGao, H., Wang, T., & Gu, S. (2022). A Study of Resident Satisfaction and Factors That Influence Old Community Renewal Based on Community Governance in Hangzhou: An Empirical Analysis. Land, 11(9), 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091421