Framing Participatory Regeneration in Communal Space Governance: A Case Study of Work-Unit Compound Neighborhoods in Shanghai, China

Abstract

The Work-Unit Compound (WUC) is a common neighborhood type that became prevalent during China’s socialist era, typically offering communal spaces that serve as vital spatial carriers for communal life. Following the shift in public housing provision from the work-unit (state-owned enterprise) through the social welfare system to a market-oriented system, the decline of work-unit systems and the privatization of housing led to the distribution of responsibility for communal spaces in WUC neighborhoods becoming more intricate. Issues related to these spaces, such as underutilization and poor management, were exacerbated as the built environment deteriorated. By the 2010s, these challenges had become central targets of various participatory regeneration initiatives. However, current discourse on participatory regeneration predominantly focuses on social outcomes, paying limited attention to post-regeneration governance modes. In response, this study develops a framework to examine the continuity and heterogeneity of communal space governance during and after regeneration projects in WUC neighborhoods. It offers a nuanced investigation of context-specific facilitating mechanisms, with the goal of supporting more effective and sustainable communal space governance in the future. Using a case study approach, the research draws on in-depth interviews that were systematically analyzed. The findings indicate that daily communal space governance in the sampled projects continues to rely on internal problem-solving methods inherited from the work-unit system (e.g., the collective sense of honor and a persistent reliance on state actors). Additionally, governance is driven by economic initiatives repurposing underutilized spaces—for instance, vegetable cultivation in enclosed areas is employed for self-sufficiency (Case A), and small-scale business that benefits the neighborhood is performed (Case B). This study also identifies a blend of formal and informal institutional arrangements linked to participatory regeneration, including the coproduction of space management between residents and grassroots government (Case A), and the government-funded purchase of community services (Case B). Moreover, extra-local networks—such as gaining mutual support from Community Garden Networks (Case A) and Community Economic Cooperatives (Case B)—play a significant role. In conclusion, this study highlights the role of facilitating mechanisms associated with participatory regeneration in shaping daily communal space governance and explores the potential of participatory strategies within contemporary neighborhood governance, particularly under recent Chinese policies targeting dilapidated urban neighborhoods. Practically, this study offers recommendations for planners and practitioners regarding incorporating facilitating mechanisms into participatory regeneration to enhance community engagement in communal space governance, especially in other post-socialist cities experiencing similar challenges.

1. Introduction

Driven by the transformation from a centrally planned socialist economy to a socialist–market economy, urban neighborhoods in China are undergoing significant transitions, including the privatization of public rental housing, the suburbanization of urban housing, gentrification, and the growth of gated commodity housing [1]. These transitions seem to follow pathways of modernization and westernization similar to those of Western cities, in line with convergence theory [2]. However, urban studies at the neighborhood level in contemporary China still provide valuable information, uncovering the unique characteristics, diverse spatial changes, and alternative development paths resulting from specific institutional arrangements and economic structures.

During the periods from the 1950s to the 1980s, Work-Unit Compound neighborhoods (WUC neighborhoods hereinafter), regarded as a strength of the socialist system, became the primary provider of public rental housing, serving workers of work-units (danwei, or state-owned enterprises). Their evolution and dominance were a response to the national government’s call to transform “consumptive cities” into “productive cities”, the development of large-scale state-owned industrial enterprises, and the socialist provision of housing [3,4]. Located near workplaces with the aim of incorporating industrial and social service provision agencies, WUC neighborhoods were allocated by work-units as a form of social welfare into different sizes of shared apartments (e.g., shared kitchens and toilets) for minimal rent, based on the workers’ job. The design of these neighborhoods was strongly influenced by Soviet-style pragmatism, with little esthetic consideration but a strong emphasis on communal life [5,6]. In this context, communal space—referring to accessible neighborhood public spaces open to all residents—was a vital setting where work-units exercised control over residents to strengthen collective identities and build workplace loyalty [7].

In this social geography, WUC neighborhoods served as the fundamental urban economic production and social management units. Neighborhoods, agencies and amenities were highly self-sufficient due to the work-units’ responsibilities for providing comprehensive social services to their staff “from the cradle to the grave” (i.e., the clinics, canteens, drugstores, schools, markets, assembly halls, squares and courtyards) for communal life [8]. Taking courtyards as an example, these are typically central and spacious areas surrounded by numerous determinant buildings in WUC neighborhoods and often offer landscaping and facilities to accommodate the activities of communal life (e.g., reading, singing, dancing and playing chess), covering dozens to hundreds of square meters. The facilities provided tend to influence the scale and diversity of communal life, and the maintenance of the courtyard tends to influence the spatial experience of communal life. Another type of communal space that needs to be highlighted is the air raid shelter. Most air raid shelters were constructed as part of vital civil air defense projects in the core urban areas of Shanghai during the 1960s and 1970s, located in both WUC neighborhoods and traditional Lilong neighborhoods (e.g., there are nearly 400 shelters in Jingan District and 600 in Huangpu District). However, although these air raid shelters occupy a combined area of more than 700,000 m², only some core urban WUC neighborhoods are equipped with them. In this regard, courtyards and air raid shelters are representative types of communal space in Shanghai’s WUC neighborhoods. A relatively homogeneous socio-spatial pattern could be observed in the communal life of WUC neighborhoods, based on occupational connections rather than socio-economic divisions or personal social networks. This homogeneity stemmed from the original objective of facilitating industrial production rather than meeting individual needs.

After the implementation of the reform and opening-up policy in 1978 and the housing reform in 1988, associated with reforms to the urban land system and the tax-sharing system, a free land market was set up. This development contributed to the decline of the work-units system, while also boosting real estate investment and property-led urban redevelopment [9]. Specifically, this marketization process recognized land as a key factor of production and transferred the ownership of urban land from the state (urban land in China had been consolidated into state ownership since 1953 through land reforms) to the market (under private ownership), aiming to enhance urban management efficiency and generate revenue [10]. This transformation significantly altered the structure of urban governance and expanded the governing actors from solely the state to a state–market partnership [9].

The central government legitimized the privatization and commodification of public housing nationally and encouraged sitting tenants to purchase public rental housing at prices well below market value [11]. Gradually, work-units retreated from in-kind housing allocation, handed over the management responsibility of WUC neighborhoods to grassroots government (Street Office) and its agencies (Residents’ Committee), and stopped allocating welfare housing in the early 2000s [12]. Since then, citizens have had to turn to the real estate market to buy or sell apartments. Concurrently, the identity of residents in WUC neighborhoods shifted from tenants in public rental housing to homeowners in private housing. Furthermore, homeowners gained additional empowerment through Property Rights Law of the People’s Republic of China enacted in 2007. These developments helped legitimize the role of homeowners in neighborhood governance—often exercised through the homeowners’ association—and contributed to the evolution of the neighborhood governance structures from a state–market duality toward a tripartite framework involving state–market–civil society actors.

In the post-socialist era, the rapid development of commodity housing and the relaxation of the hukou system (household registration in mainland China) meant that capable residents gradually moved out of WUC neighborhoods into commodity housing to improve their living conditions. At the same time, large numbers of migrants moved in because of the low rents and convenient locations. As a result, WUC neighborhoods gradually became “migrant enclaves”, accommodating a mix of low-income long-term residents—mostly retired workers—and new migrants [13]. This transition has increased residential heterogeneity within WUC neighborhoods, though residents still maintain a relatively high level of homogeneity compared to those in commodity housing [14]. Apart from this relative homogeneity, residents in WUC neighborhoods also tend to exhibit stronger neighborly interactions and more robust social relations, compared to those in commodity neighborhoods [15,16]. Additionally, other distinctive characteristics—such as a unique living culture, socio-economic diversity, and built environment features—can be observed in WUC neighborhoods [17].

These market-oriented urban transitions (e.g., housing reform and institution restructuring) have stimulated widespread urban redevelopment practices in the post-reform era. These efforts aim to promote economic growth, enhance urban images and upgrade urban infrastructure, exerting far-reaching influences across cities, particularly in old neighborhoods such as WUC neighborhoods located in core areas [9]. Aside from positive outcomes, negative consequences have also been acknowledged. These include the exclusion of resident participation in the renewal process, inadequate compensation, and the replacement of existing local shops with gentrified high-end stores [18]. In addition, over decades of large-scale, state-market-led urban renewal, urban China experienced sporadic gentrification in the 1990s (as modest market experiments), widespread gentrification in the 2000s (under neoliberal urban policies) and reactivated gentrification since the 2010s (through shantytown redevelopment schemes), making gentrification an integral part of contemporary urban issues [19].

However, governance in WUC neighborhoods remains predominantly under the mandate or influence of the state, owing to their origins within the work-unit system. Although market actors (i.e., property management companies) and civil society actors (i.e., homeowners associations) also participate in neighborhood governance, their roles are often limited. For instance, property management companies in WUC neighborhoods are typically not fully functional and are only responsible for basic services such as garbage clearance and parking management. Moreover, due to a lack of professional property management expertise and insufficient manpower, the Residents’ Committee is heavily burdened with routine administrative tasks, leaving little time and energy for communal space management. This has led to the underutilization and poor management of communal spaces in WUC neighborhoods since the shift in responsibility that occurred in the 2000s. These issues have been further exacerbated by the ongoing decline and aging of the built environment. Specifically, communal courtyards that once supported vibrant communal life gradually became underutilized owing to poorly maintained facilities (e.g., broken floor tiles and benches), neglected spaces (e.g., overgrown with weeds and littered with garbage), and negative spatial experiences (e.g., uncleaned standing water and dilapidated surroundings). Such issues can be observed in most WUC neighborhoods, albeit to varying degrees.

Air raid shelters also face underutilization due to various issues, such as structural concerns stemming from low construction standards, safety risks, spatial limitations like a low ceiling height and water seepage, as well as restricted functional adaptation possibilities resulting from non-compliance with fire protection regulations. Many of these issues can be observed in most core urban WUC neighborhoods, with the severity varying depending on the scale and location of the shelters. Furthermore, although WUC neighborhoods are among the main dilapidated urban areas in China, they have been difficult to demolish and redevelop due to their distinctive socialist communal culture and the large number of residents involved. Since the 2000s; however, physical improvements have been carried out in Shanghai’s WUC neighborhoods, including the renovation of residential units to address shared kitchens and toilets, structural reinforcement to combat aging and deteriorating, and the conversion of flat roofs to pitched roofs to resolve leakage and improve thermal insulation. Nevertheless, improvements to communal spaces have lagged behind, largely due to ambiguities in responsibility and complex property relations inherited from the earlier work-unit system. Addressing communal space-related issues is crucial for enhancing the built environment within these neighborhoods. Communal space helps foster neighborhood participation by strengthening place-based social relations and nurturing place attachment [20]. Similarly, regeneration efforts focused on communal spaces can enhance neighborly relations by creating opportunities for resident collaboration and negotiation, particularly in commodity housing contexts [15]. This is especially significant in WUC neighborhoods, where communal space carries forward a strong collective culture from the work-unit era, and where communal life continues to cultivate a contemporary sense of place-based social attachment.

This has made communal space improvement a key objective within China’s emerging small-scale, in situ participatory regeneration initiatives in dilapidated neighborhoods. This shift comes after decades of large-scale urban renewal—prevalent since the 1990s—which primarily involved demolition and resident relocation. The decline of large-scale urban renewal in China can be attributed partly to the growing recognition of its negative impacts (e.g., breaking down urban fabrics, social networks, neighborly relations, etc.) and partly to the incorporation of legal provision for public participation into planning policy in 2001, along with the promotion of New-Type Urbanization in 2014. As a complex and comprehensive policy campaign encompassing population urbanization, land urbanization and economic urbanization, the implementation of these policies required a shift in focus from a land-centered approach to a people-oriented one, as well as the adoption of differentiated urbanization models across regions and sub-regions [21,22]. Fulfilling the objectives of these policies remains a long-term endeavor due to multiple contradictions and challenges. These include integrating bottom-up initiatives with top-down planning strategies across regions with varying economic management systems, facilitating the citizenization of rural migrants, and incorporating scientific research as well as citizen participation into the implementation of government plans [23]. In response, China’s urban regeneration has undergone significant transformations. These include a shift in emphasis from physical upgrading and economic gentrification toward holistic socio-cultural development, and an evolution in governance from state-led dominance to cooperative models involving the state, market, and civil society [24].

In the realm of local service delivery, both participatory planning and collaborative governance prove effective in making strategic choices and promoting sustainable development by empowering stakeholders, mobilizing resources, and incorporating local knowledge [25]. While participatory planning integrates public involvement within the urban planning process, collaborative governance extends beyond planning contexts to focus more explicitly on enabling actors—such as through the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, amplifying resident voices, and reconfiguring power dynamics—as well as enabling governing processes (e.g., addressing decision-making and policy challenges for collective problem-solving, facilitating critical learning to navigate complex issues, and enhancing the performance of agents in carrying out goals rather than merely establishing them) [26,27,28,29,30]. Another relevant phenomenon in bottom-up spontaneous service delivery is informality. In Global South countries, including China, urban informality has often been associated with unregulated economic practices, albeit with varying degrees of state interventions across different contexts [31]. The importance of reviewing top-down planning policies and informal governance practices lies in the need to analyze the complex formal and informal arrangements throughout all stages of urban regeneration—particularly at the community and street levels.

Scholars have explored the relationship between participatory planning and collaborative governance at the community and street levels. On the one hand, participatory approaches tend to foster collaboration by establishing power-sharing relationships, enhancing mutual understanding, creating opportunities for marginalized groups to engage, and strengthening both interpersonal and institutional trust [32,33]. On the other hand, collaborative workshops can serve as practical mechanisms for reaching a consensus within participatory planning, yet they may also exacerbate conflicts by incorporating opponent stakeholders [17,34]. Despite this tension, increasing efforts have been directed toward developing an inclusive and horizontal governance mode in urban regeneration. The involvement of market actors can alleviate funding shortages by forming contractual relationships with local governments for regeneration projects, while the participation of civil society actors often facilitates the smoother implementation of these initiatives [35,36].

In the existing literature, a range of influencing factors contributing to effective participation in regeneration processes have been examined. These include participation patterns [36], the features of collaborative governance [37], collaboration within old residential communities [38], collaborative governance structures [39], as well as the combined effects of collaboration and physical improvements [15]. However, few studies have explored the impacts of participatory regeneration after the completion of projects. Available discussions primarily emphasize the enhancement of neighborly relations [15], the building of social capital [32], and the creation of conditions for achieving collaborative governance [39], while the influence of participatory regeneration on communal space governance post-completion remains understudied. Furthermore, participatory neighborhood regeneration is not a homogeneous process, and not all participatory approaches are sustained after the completion of regeneration projects. This highlights the need to better understand and explain how participatory regeneration shapes communal space governance. Therefore, there is a need to deepen the exploration of how communal space-based participatory regeneration influences communal space governance.

In this regard, this study seeks to explore the logic through which participatory regeneration contributes to governance. From a practical standpoint, neighborhood regeneration—as a complex process involving multiple stakeholders—often requires substantial state interventions, leaving little room for public participation [40]. Moreover, the limited participatory opportunities that do exist are primarily confined to the planning stage. This issue is particularly pronounced in the regeneration of historical neighborhoods, which encompass a broad range of social, economic and cultural values. Nevertheless, China’s emerging emphasis on participation in state-led regeneration projects provides legitimacy to achieve “good governance” and empowers residents by affirming their right to identify collective issues [41]. This participatory process is realized through the active involvement of residents and stakeholders—rather than through hierarchical or coalitional politics—and requires all participants to be aware of their rights and responsibilities regarding a consensus on proposed issues [42]. Thus, when participants are able to share information, provide feedback, negotiate, and reach the agreements via deliberately designed participatory strategies, they are more likely to engage in governance processes. Such engagement may include commenting on decisions, distributing benefits, monitoring behaviors, and fostering commitment [30]. To a large extent, these mechanisms can make the implementation of rules more transparent and facilitate deeper involvement in collaborative governance.

Seeking to address this gap, this study aims to understand how participatory regeneration affects communal space governance by examining the impact of participatory approaches on daily community engagement after the completion of regeneration projects. Two research objectives are developed: first, we compare the differences in participatory strategies related to communal space governance during and after the implementation of two distinct pathways of participatory regeneration; and second, we explore the facilitating mechanisms through which participatory regeneration integrates such strategies into communal space governance. Theoretically, this study aims to contribute to three main areas: first, exploring the evolving role of communal spaces in post-socialist WUC neighborhoods—from symbols of static collective identity toward self-sustaining civic places that foster dynamic collective identities; second, examining how the impacts of participatory regeneration extends beyond physical and social improvements to governance enhancement through stakeholder collaboration; and third, investigating the facilitating mechanisms that support the establishment of routine communal space governance within state-led participatory regeneration across specific scenarios. On a practical level, this study intends to offer policy recommendations for strengthening communal space governance in WUC neighborhoods through participatory urban regeneration guidelines, particularly in planning, management action plans, and regulatory frameworks. Additionally, this study seeks to deepen our understanding of how facilitating mechanisms shape communal space governance within China’s unique post-socialist transition in the context of urban regeneration.

To achieve these aims and objectives, this study develops a theoretical framework that connects participatory regeneration with communal space governance. In the literature, institutional arrangements are recognized as essential for providing reliable context-specific information, including temporal and spatial variables, along with a locally grounded repertoire of acceptable rules [30]. Community commoning, which emphasizes both continuities and changes within communities, is understood as the reproduction of communal processes through a range of associational practices that extend beyond property relations [42]. Scholars have provided innovative insights into urban commonings, such as the transformation of abandoned private lots into community gardens in low-income inner-city neighborhoods of New York. These initiatives were realized through collaborative meetings and social interactions among residents of diverse racial and generational backgrounds, employing both formal and informal arrangements to foster consensus-oriented decision-making [29,43], dealing with conflicts [44], and the importance of voluntarism and collective community input (e.g., assuming responsibilities and contributing resources) to shape public space governance in the absence of public funding, highlighting alternative approaches to issue resolution [45]. Furthermore, citizen participation in consensus-building processes tends to create opportunities for the public to access information and knowledge, facilitating engagement through communication and interaction [46]. Collective cooperation and communication tend to promote spontaneous learning and knowledge sharing within neighborhoods, reflecting practical resource mobilization aimed at collective problem-solving [47]. Accordingly, this framework identifies three key aspects for examining the impact of participatory regeneration on communal space governance: reaching a consensus in issue identification, dealing with conflicts, and achieving collective problem-solving (Figure 1).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study

To address the objective of exploring how the facilitating mechanisms of participatory strategies associated with regeneration projects influence and shape community engagement in communal space governance, the employed research method needs to not only describe the complex real-life phenomena but also capture the underlying driving forces for occurrences [48]. For this reason, this study employs a case study as the research method, owing to its ability to provide detailed explanations and enable an in-depth understanding of complex social phenomena [48].

In this paper, Shanghai was selected as the research setting. This was because, firstly, as one of the first batch of megacities promoting participatory regeneration, grassroots governments in Shanghai have promoted a lot of diverse participatory regeneration projects since 2015 for the improvement of the built environment, offering a convenient sample of representative case studies for investigation. Secondly, Shanghai has a relatively highly developed civil society sector compared with other cities, with numerous social associations, community groups, and social enterprises, making the exploration of relationships between state and civil society actors feasible. Thirdly, as one of the first batch of cities to promote the idea of participatory social governance, the Shanghai municipal government has a rich history of policies and regulations aimed at facilitating innovative social governance strategies for improving public service provision, making it meaningful to discuss social governance in collective affairs. Finally, because of its status as a vital industrial city, after the formation of the PRC, a large number of WUC neighborhoods near factories were built in Shanghai to accommodate workers during the periods from the 1950s to the 1980s. The communal space governance issues were severe within these neighborhoods, making the exploration of communal space governance timely and meaningful.

Given this study’s focus on exploring the influencing role of participatory regeneration in shaping communal space governance, three positive criteria were used to identify eligible cases: (1) cases in which participatory strategies were conducted; (2) cases in which the neighborhood type was a WUC neighborhood; (3) cases in which participatory strategies were integrated into or influenced the daily routine of communal space governance after the completion of the projects. Although a large number of participatory regeneration projects that meet these criteria have been promoted and implemented in Shanghai, two types of cases were identified based on their unique patterns. The first type of case is participatory community garden projects such as those initiated by Clover Nature School Teenager Nature Experience Service Center (CNS center hereinafter) and the second type is participatory design projects such as those initiated by Big Fish Community Design Center (BFCD center hereinafter).

Founded in 2014, with the vision of “Building and Sharing Neighborhood Shangri-la through Participation”, the CNS center has cultivated more than 200 community gardens, supported over 900 community gardens, and organized more than 1300 participatory design workshops in Shanghai, having a fundamental influence on community-garden-oriented community development in other Chinese cities, such as Beijing, Nanning, and Shenzhen. Similarly, since its establishment in 2018, the BFCD center has initiated a series of communal space-related community development projects. For example, “One Square Meter Initiative” encourages residents and shop-owners to transform their immediate surroundings for community development. Two typical cases were identified among their numerous projects: the BC community garden, regenerated from a poorly managed vacant landscape space (Case A), and the XL cooperative center, regenerated from an idle antiaircraft basement (Case B). Poorly managed landscape and idle antiaircraft basements are frequently typical of dilapidated communal spaces in WUC neighborhoods.

2.2. Measures

To fulfill the first objective of comparing the differences between the participatory strategies associated with participatory regeneration in communal space governance during and after the completion of two different pathways of participatory regeneration projects, the following three aspects were measured, drawing on previous literature: (a) reaching a consensus in identifying issues, (b) dealing with conflicts, and (c) achieving collective problem-solving. Reaching a consensus in identifying issues was defined as the process of agreeing that specific issues were barriers to success and was measured through participants’ behaviors and activities [49], especially interactive activities and relations among different participants that tended to generate common agreement. Dealing with conflicts refers to the collaborative methods and mechanisms between participants when these participants face divergences [38], which could be measured via mechanisms and interactions that were adopted to effectively balance demands from both sides of the conflict. Collective problem-solving refers to the cooperation and collaboration among stakeholders and resident participants required to achieve a consensus on problem solutions based on collective efforts and commitments [50], which could be measured via proposals raised by stakeholders and participants in order to solve problems based on collective efforts and take collective action to realize the solution.

To fulfill the second objective of exploring the facilitating mechanisms associated with participatory regeneration in framing communal space governance, the following three aspects were taken into consideration: physical improvements to the communal space, social participation and institutional arrangements. To be specific, physical improvements to the communal space contained upgrading collective-owned neighborhood public space [14] and were measured via the size, function, architectural, and landscape design of the communal space. Social participation referred to residents’ participation in social activities or volunteerism, instead of political participation such as voting [51], which was measured via resident participation in social activities or events, membership in social groups, and serving as volunteers. Institutional arrangements referred to the set of rules, procedures, and regulations associated with mobilizing and facilitating participation in the regeneration process [52] and were measured via formal institutions (e.g., administrative regulations, participatory procedures) and informal institutions (e.g., incentives, etc.).

2.3. Data Collection

To reduce the bias generated by employing one data collection method, this research adopted multiple data collection methods, including documentary materials (policies and regulations from local state and public departments, released reports, project process diaries and project logs, online social media videos and articles, as well as event and activity recordings from Official Accounts), participatory site observations, and in-depth interviews with stakeholders, professionals from local universities, experts in relevant fields during and after the regeneration projects, and residents in the neighborhoods of two cases (June–July 2016, June 2017, June–July 2018, August 2021, July 2023, and Nov–Dec 2024). These interviewees included 62 stakeholders (8 local officials from grassroots government and public departments, 2 community planners, 4 communal space operators, 6 leaders from community organizations and groups, and 42 residents), and 14 consultants (11 professionals from local universities focusing on participatory planning, social governance, and neighborhood regeneration, and 3 experts from fields of practice) in two cases (

Table 1. Interviewees.

Types	Number	Interviewees
Local Officials (8 people)	No. 1	Staff member from the Street Office
	No. 2	Staff member from the Self-Governance Office of Street Office
	No. 3	Staff member from the Business Operation Office of Street Office
	Nos. 4–5	Staff members from the Planning and Natural Resource Bureau
	No. 6	Staff from Public Space Promotion Center, affiliated with the Planning & Natural Resource Bureau
	No. 7	Staff member from the Housing Management Bureau
	No. 8	Staff member from the Civil Air Defense Office of Street Office
Planners (2 people)	No. 9	The community planner in Case A
	No. 10	The community planner in Case B
Operators (4 people)	Nos. 11–12	Responsible operators in Case A
	Nos. 13–14	Responsible operators in Case B
Community groups leaders (6 people)	Nos. 15–16	Leaders of Residents’ Committees in two case studies
	Nos. 17–18	Staff from Property Management Companies in two case studies
	Nos. 19–20	Members of community interest groups
Residents (42)	Nos. 21–42	Residents from Case A neighborhood
	Nos. 43–62	Residents from Case B neighborhood
Professionals (11 people)	Nos. 63–68	Professors focusing on participatory planning
	Nos. 69–70	Professors focusing on social governance
	Nos. 71–73	Professors focusing on neighborhoods regeneration
Experts (3 people)	Nos. 74–76	Practitioners engaged in participatory regeneration projects

). All interviews were recorded and transcribed, ranging from 20 to 50 min. All interviewees were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. Interviews were conducted without the involvement of other organizations to ensure their answers were not affected. The interview questions are listed in Appendix A.

2.4. Data Analysis

Since this paper aimed to explore the facilitating mechanisms associated with participatory regeneration in framing participatory strategies in communal space governance, which could neither be directly generated from the existing literature nor verified through existing theories, inductive reasoning was used to obtain theories through coding and systematically analyzing qualitative data [53]. A better understanding of the process in urban planning and design requires a comparison of emerging phenomena with existing knowledge and the integration of new theoretical explorations with pre-existing theories [54]. This is vital for the exploration of emerging participatory regeneration impacts in contemporary China under the context of economic structuring and urban transition. A grounded theory method was adopted in this study to analyze interview data, owing to its ability to build theories from the data itself in unique scenarios [55,56,57].

This paper employed multi-layer data coding guidelines (i.e., open coding, axial coding and selective coding), scrutinizing data based on continuous comparisons, writing memos (i.e., codes, emerging categories, linkages between categories, features, summaries of ideas) and incorporating the generated linkages and ideas into the existing literature and knowledge [58]. The analysis process contained three steps. Firstly, we coded initial data and categorized them into first-order categories demonstrating the key features associated with participatory regeneration projects, including participatory strategies, physical improvements to the communal space, resident social participation, institutional arrangements, and stakeholder interactions. Secondly, we listed the axial coding, based on which we generated core explaining themes for understanding the communal space governance in each case and classifying first-order categories into second-order categories, based on which we captured the diverse and dynamic collaborations between stakeholders. Thirdly, we theorized and generalized these themes to elaborate on differences in communal space governance during and after participatory regeneration and to identify key elements in the explanation of the facilitating mechanisms associated with participatory regeneration in shaping communal space governance.

Specifically, in Case A, participatory planning, designing, constructing and management features were identified in the first-order category of “Participatory Strategies”. Based on that, mobilization meetings (encouraging, empowering, and engaging stakeholders in community development), guided community tours (inviting key stakeholders to join the guided community tour to identify potential regeneration sites), and consultant meetings (discussing project implementation modes) were generated in the second-order category of “Participatory Planning”. Co-designing activities (inviting the elderly and pupils to draw their dreaming gardens) and normalizing activities (inviting a professional landscape company to normalize the drawing into graph paper for implementation) were identified in the second-order category of “Participatory Designing”. Land treatment, planting, and building facilities through recycled materials (e.g., paving and adding fences) were included in the second-order category of “Participatory Construction”. Regular CNSNGO-organized activity participation, local group routine activities, and pupil routine activities were generated in the second-order category of “Participatory Management”. Subsequently, “Spatial Arrangements” (spatial layouts), “Functional Reorganizations” (original functions, the types, and characteristics of the implanted new functions), and “Boundaries” (the number and size of the entrance, the transparency, and materials of the enclosure) were identified as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Physical Improvement of the Communal Space”. “State agency intervention participation” (the nomination of resident representatives, the organization of activities, and the recruitment of retired cadres) and “NGO organized participation” (training programs, workshops, educational, and parent–child interactive activities) were generated under the first-order category of “Resident Social Participation”. “Formal Arrangements” (signing cooperation agreements and government’s purchasing of community service contracts) and “Informal Arrangements” (reputation and resource mobilization of Residents’ Committee leaders, the public praise of the NGO, media exposure and propaganda, and non-monetary incentives) were generated under the first-order category of “Institutional Arrangements”. “Administrative Relations” (superior and subordinate, same levels of different departments), “Financial Relations” (funding provision, sharing, and flows) and “Like-Minded Social Relations” (supportive forwarding of information, participation in organized activities among like-minded members sharing a common identity) were generated as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Stakeholder Interactions”.

In Case B, planning, decorating, and management features were identified in the first-order category of “Participatory Strategies”. Specifically, “Identifying Local Needs” (questionnaires, workshops, WeChat Groups), “Identifying Local Talents” (identifying capable residents through interviews, workshops and WeChat Groups) and “Recruiting Partners” (recruiting like-minded partners through invited workshops and consultant meetings) were generated as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Participatory Planning”. “Wall Painting”, “Ornamental Hand-Making” and “Second-Hand Furniture Donating” were identified as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Participatory Decorating”. “Bulletin Board Wall Stickers” (collecting visitors’ and customers’ comments) and “Consultant Meetings” (discussing the recruitment of partners, and the site development, routine management, and operation issues) were identified as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Participatory Management”. Subsequently, “Spatial Arrangements” (spatial separations and layouts) and “Functional Reorganizations” (original functions, implanted social service functions, and commercial functions) were identified as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Physical Improvement of the Communal Space”. “State intervened participation” (nomination of the BFCD center and some capable residents), “BFCD organized participation” (identifying local needs, encouraging community engagement, recruiting partners), and “Spontaneous Participation” (becoming volunteers to provide community services and becoming managers by joining the operation team as studio managers to manage communal facilities) were generated under the first-order category of “Resident Social Participation”. “Formal Arrangements” (signing cooperation agreements and government’s purchasing of community service contracts) and “Informal Arrangements” (collaborating with the department of the National Defense Mobilization Office apart from state and its agencies, the public praise of the NGO, media exposure and propaganda, and both non-monetary and commercial incentives) were generated under the first-order category of “Institutional Arrangements”. “Administrative Relations” (superior and subordinate, same levels of different departments), “Financial Relations” (funding provision, sharing, flows, and profit-making services), and “Partner Relations” (supportive forwarding of information, participation in organized activities, and cooperation among like-minded members sharing a common identity) were generated as the second-order categories under the first-order category of “Stakeholder Interactions”.

Based on a systematic coding and comparison of the two cases (

Table 2. Key information of first-order and second-order coding categories in Case A and B.

First-Order Categories	Participatory Strategies	Physical Improvements	Resident Social Participation	Institutional Arrangements	Stakeholders Interactions
Second- order categories in Case A	Planning (mobilizing meetings, guided community tour, consultant meetings) Designing (co-designing, normalizing) Construction (land treatment, planting, and building facilities) Management (CNSNGO organized activities, local group organized activities, pupil joined activities)	Spatial arrangements (spatial layouts) Functional re-organizations (original functions, implanted new functions) Boundaries (entrance and enclosure)	State agencies intervened participation (nomination, activities organization and retired cadre recruitment) NGO organized participation (training, educational, parent–child interaction)	Formal arrangements (agreement, contract) Informal arrangements (reputation, resource mobilization capacities, public praise, media exposure, propaganda, non-monetary incentives)	Administrative Relations (superior and subordinate, same levels of different departments) Financial Relations (funding provision, sharing and flows) Like-Minded Social Relations (supportive forwarding, participation)
Second- order categories in Case B	Planning (identifying local needs, identifying local talents, recruiting partners) Decorating (wall painting, ornamental hand-making, second-hand furniture donating) Management (bulletin board wall stickers and consultant meetings with partners)	Spatial arrangements (spatial separations and layouts) Functional re-organizations (original functions, implanted social service functions and commercial functions) Boundaries (entrance and enclosure)	State agencies intervened participation (nomination) BFCD organized participation (identifying local needs, encouraging community engagement) Spontaneous participation (volunteering in service provision and becoming managers)	Formal arrangements (agreement, contract) Informal arrangements (collaboration, public praise, media exposure, propaganda, both non-monetary and commercial incentives)	Administrative Relations (superior and subordinate, same levels of different departments) Financial Relations (funding provision, sharing and flows, profit-making services) Like-Minded Social Relations (supportive forwarding, participation, cooperation)

), theorizing and generalizing processes were identified to capture the slight differences in participatory strategies associated with regeneration projects for achieving routine communal space governance. Although different participatory strategies were employed in the two cases, the involved participants, the conducted participatory approaches, the involvement and interactions of stakeholders, and the informal institutional arrangements were different in the identification of local issues, dealing with conflicts, and problem-solving, which were generated based on different logic that is closely related to communal space governance. For example, mobilizing and persuading participants, mobilizing stakeholders relying on reputation and media exposure for dealing with conflicts, and external NGO-dominant problem-solving was required for the smoothness of communal space governance in Case A. Empowering residents and stakeholders in identifying local needs, dealing with conflicts, and solving problems was required for the effectiveness of communal space governance in Case B. In this regard, the Results section is developed based on these three points, covering mechanisms for identifying communal space issues, mechanisms for dealing with conflicts, and mechanisms for achieving collective problem-solving.

3. Results

3.1. Case A: Regenerating the Poorly Managed Greening into a Vivifying Community Garden

Case A was in Yangpu District, accommodating 2800 households (around 6800 residents) in total. The vacant communal space (around 210 m²) was a green area when the neighborhood was built in the 1950s, and it gradually became deserted due to poor management. Taking advantage of the opportunity offered by University–Government Cooperation, the Street Office (grassroots government) initiated the regeneration project via a tri-lateral cooperation with the Department of Landscape Architecture at Tongji University, a landscape design company, and the Clover Nature School Teenager Nature Experience Service Center (CNS center hereinafter). The participatory regeneration project was conducted from January to July in 2016. Diverse participatory activities were organized, including workshops (inviting the elderly and teenagers to draw their dream gardens) and building activities (clearing the land, seeding, planting, watering, and building fences). In addition, a series of organized activities after the completion of the project were adopted, owing to the Street Office’s collaboration with the CNS center via the government procurement of public service contracts. The CNS center promised to organize at least one gardening-related activity each month, such as “Seeds Floating” (sharing seeds with strangers), “Composting” (manuring kitchen waste mixture for fertilizing), and “Painting Fence” (painting fences with different colors), and to keep the regenerated garden in good condition. The dilapidated condition prior to regeneration, the participatory activities carried out during the regenerating process, and the transformed state following the completion of the project are illustrated in Figure 2.

3.1.1. Mechanisms in Identifying Communal Space Issues: Participatory Workshops

At the beginning of the regeneration project, the proposal for transforming the vacant landscape space into a community garden was raised by the director of the CNS center, who had rich experience in landscape design and wanted to introduce participatory design into China via this case. “As a planner, I wanted to mobilize residents to participate in the whole process of regeneration. It’s not about the money. Training residents with little farming skills is hard and time-consuming, but we want to facilitate residents to care more about their neighborhood and the nature which was scarce for kids grown up in the city” (Interviewee No. 19, 22 June 2016). However, the CNS center was an external social association that the residents were not familiar with, which caused friction. “At first, [because the] residents did not have [previous] experience [with] joining a regeneration project and they did not trust the CNS center, we had to mobilize them. Most of the participants were retired communists and cadres from the work-unit, who normally had close interactions with the Residents’ Committee” (Interviewee No. 15, 22 June 2017). At that time, active residents were mobilized by the leader of the Residents’ Committee to participate in gardening workshops and activities. Also, gardening was not only skill training but also a means to establish a link between individuals and the neighborhood. “We organized month-long gardening-based workshops and activities, such as turning the soil, manuring the mixture for fertilizing, seeding and transplanting. Over 300 residents joined us” (Interviewee No. 21, 8 July 2016). These interest-based activities attracted plenty of residents to work together and contributed to encouraging residents to care about their neighborhood and interact with their neighbors.

As the project’s implementation progressed, participants became diverse. “Participants included stay-at-home moms who regarded these gardening workshops as important natural educational activities for their kids, elderly migrants who wanted to be part of the community, students who found the regenerating place interesting, and residents from other neighborhoods who wanted to regenerate their own obsolete communal space in this way” (Interviewee No. 12, 21 July 2018). In this regard, various residents joined in on the implementation of the project owing to different reasons, but all found fulfillment in some form. After the completion of the project, owing to the positive response from social media and space upgrading, the Street Office decided to collaborate with the CNS center by using Social Organization’s service and inviting it to be responsible for the maintenance of the regenerated community garden. After that, it was the CNS center, rather than the Residents’ Committee, that identified communal garden-related issues and organized gardening-related activities. “There were two neighborhood groups responsible for the maintenance of the garden: one was the Flower-Friend Group, which was all retired elderly; the other was the school-residents committee group, which was pupils from a local primary school and their parents. These two groups both had responsible leaders” (Interviewee No. 21, 20 August 2021). At this stage, the CNS center started to encourage local groups and capable leaders to be responsible for the regenerated garden.

After the expiration of the agreement between the CNS center and the Street Office, the Flower-Friend Group collectively shared most maintenance responsibilities for the first three years. “It was the Flower-Friend Group that took care of the garden basically, but most of them were elderly. They complained about the difficulties in managing the garden, especially in watering and weeding” (Interviewee No. 11, 20 August 2021). This made the CNS center search for other parties to get involved as the Flower-Friend Group grew older and less able. For teenage participants, the CNS center promoted a series of cognitive training programs for pupils in collaboration with local schools, aiming to encourage more teenagers to care about and engage in community affairs. “Through joining these programs, I got to know not only various botany and all communal spaces from corner to corner, but also the neighbors, especially vulnerable groups such as the solitary elderly within the neighborhood. This made me know more about the place where I live” (Interviewee No. 24, 20 July 2018). From this interview, it was also discovered that these organized activities helped teenagers better understand the neighborhood’s built environment and engage in social interactions with their neighbors. “We also encouraged teenagers to identify communal space issues and look for feasible solutions. We want to involve teenagers as a link to facilitate their family to participate” (Interviewee No. 12, 20 August 2021). This interviewee was one of three directors of the CNS center and was responsible for cultivating responsible groups for the regenerated gardens, as maintenance was vital to keep them in good condition.

3.1.2. Mechanisms in Dealing with Conflicts: Leadership

At the beginning of the regeneration, “the leader of the Residents’ Committee played a vital role in mobilizing residents and did most of the collaboration between stakeholders” (Interviewee No. 19, 20 July 2016). Owing to the context of WUC neighborhoods, most original residents were retired workers who tended to trust and rely on the work-unit and the Residents’ Committee. “When there were conflicts, we had to ask the leader of the Residents’ Committee for help. She always could solve the problem based on her social networks and personal reputation” (Interviewee No. 12, 21 June 2017). Although the CNS center established a consultation platform to collaborate with other stakeholders, it highly relied on the support from state actors and the agencies. The resolution of external issues relied highly on the Street Office while the resolution of internal issues relied highly on the Residents’ Committee. The CNS center facilitated residents to care about their neighborhood and neighbors through organizing constructive and gardening activities, based on support from the leader of the Residents’ Committee who had strong local resource mobilization abilities.

The CNS center also fostered the development of local groups and leaders through a series of participatory activities and workshops. This initiative led to the formation of two community groups: the Flower-Friend Group, comprising retired work-unit employees, and the pupil volunteer group, consisting of local primary school pupils primarily responsible for watering. The Flower-Friend Group’s involvement in the daily maintenance of the community garden was related to the mobilization of the Residents’ Committee. “We needed local groups to share responsibilities for the maintenance of the regenerated garden. The leader of the Residents’ Committee reminded us that there were some retired workers who were keen on gardening, and she persuaded them to help solve collective issues in the garden” (Interviewee No. 12, 21 June 2017). Due to inherited trust links from the work-unit system, the leader of the Flower-Friend Group was more willing to cooperate with the Residents’ Committee, compared with other associations, in tackling gardening-related collective conflicts. “It was the Residents’ Committee that collaborated with teachers from local primary schools who mobilized pupils to join the volunteer groups, on the condition that serving as volunteers was counted in summer practical assignments” (Interviewee No. 23, 12 June 2018). The success of pupils’ volunteering in contributing to garden maintenance through collaboration between the Residents’ Committee and the local primary school also mainly relied on the resource mobilization of the leader of the Residents’ Committee.

As the implementation of the project and during the period that the CNS center cooperated with the Street Office in the management of the regenerated community garden, the CNS center promoted a Cooperative Consultation Platform for dealing with conflicts for some time. “The CNS center and Residents’ Committee established an internal consultation platform, which was helpful to strengthen the communication and interaction between different stakeholders. But this platform became non-functional when the CNS center quit” (Interviewee No. 23, 21 June 2017). The conflict-solving mechanisms experienced a shift in emphasis from the leader of the Residents’ Committee, to the consultation platform and cultivated community leaders, and then back to the leader of the Residents’ Committee after the withdrawal of the CNS center, indicating that the consultation platform mechanisms associated with participatory regeneration were not truly integrated in the daily routine governance of the communal space.

3.1.3. Mechanisms in Achieving Collective Solutions: Participatory Interest-Based Activities and External Social Networking

For the achievement of collective solutions toward community garden improvement, the first mechanism was inviting residents to participate in interest-based activities, which were embedded with collective solutions strategies. “When we organized free educational activities, we usually incorporated the management affairs into these activities. The design of these activities needed to be interesting, attractive, and effective” (Interviewee No. 12, 20 August 2021). After the completion of the regeneration project, the CNS center still engaged in the maintenance of the community garden due to the combination of both building maintenance and the organization of social activities in the contract with the Street Office.

However, after the completion of the contract, the CNS center pulled out from this neighborhood. The kid volunteer group gradually retreated, as they were fully occupied with their homework after entering senior grades, leaving the maintenance responsibilities to the elderly. “We facilitated and supported members of the Flower-Friend Group to continue their responsibilities in the regenerated community garden through giving them honors which was very important for retired workers grown up deeply influenced by a sense of collective group honor, such as being interviewed by a local TV station and being publicized in social media and local newspapers” (Interviewee No. 16, 7 June 2018). The Flower-Friend Group members were actively engaged in the maintenance management of the community because the Residents’ Committee encouraged them by inviting public media to broadcast their contributions and giving them incentive union credits for their volunteerism. However, as the Flower-Friend Group members grew older, they found it physically difficult to continue to maintain the community garden.

In addition, owing to the demonstration effects of this first community garden in China, plenty of obsolete communal spaces in WUC neighborhoods were regenerated into community gardens by the CNS center and its followers. “Till now, we have built 111 community gardens in Shanghai, and helped build 600 mini community gardens through empowering and facilitating residents on their own” (Interviewee No. 6, 12 August 2021). These regenerated community gardens had similar participatory strategies in the planning, designing, construction, and management stages, and had similar operation modes based on the Street Office’s purchase of social organization service. These community gardens all had WeChat groups, and these community gardens established a “Community Garden Networking” throughout the city. Hence, this Community Garden Networking could share resources, volunteers, provide training programs, and integrate gardens into different city walk routes for specific visitors to enhance public concern.

3.2. Case B: Regenerating a Vacant Underground Air-Raid Shelter into a Community Center

Case B, located in Changning District, was built in the 1980s and accommodated around 3000 households (around 9000 residents). The underutilized underground space covered 115 m² and was successively used as an air raid shelter and a guest house in the socialist era. The regeneration project, initiated by the grassroot government, was implemented based on the collaboration with the BFCD Center, which was a social association focusing on inspiring residents to propose and execute bottom-up solutions for community improvement. This project started with a series of activities, including questionnaires, interviews, participatory design workshops, neighborhood music activities, parent–kids interaction activities, and neighborhood gatherings. Based on the organization of these activities, the BFCD Center mobilized more than 3000 residents (over 100 households) to join a WeChat Group for further social participation.

Throughout the project, numerous participatory procedures were established to regenerate the communal space. For instance, a detailed four-stage process was developed for regenerating civil defense engineering in WUC neighborhoods: the application stage (selecting and orienting the space), the preparation stage (mobilizing residents and identifying local needs), the operation stage (engaging residents in painting and decorating the space) and the self-sustaining stage (empowering residents to initiate businesses and contribute to the community). Through participatory activities, the underground space was regenerated into 36 separable rooms (each room around 12–15 m²) and divided into two parts with three dispersed functions (the communal function was painted yellow, the shared function was painted red, and manager studios were painted blue) but connected as a conterminous space. The communal zone contained 16 rooms, covering a reception, a pantry, a collective living room, a book bar, an exhibition room, a grocery, a video hall, a dining room for students after school, and public washrooms. The shared zone contained four shared rooms, including an activity room, a self-study room, a recording room, and a meeting room. Manager studios contained 16 rooms, covering a café, a sports goods store, a food security-themed amusement room, and a resting station for cleaning ladies. The regenerated space was opened to the public in March 2021. Figure 3 illustrates the dilapidated condition prior to regeneration, the participatory workshops and activities conducted during the regeneration and decoration phases, and the transformed state following the project’s completion.

3.2.1. Mechanisms in Identifying Local Needs: Interviews, Questionnaires, Participatory Workshops, Co-Governance Committee Meetings

During the process of the participatory regeneration project, the layout and function of the regenerated underground space were identified based on the information collected from questionnaires, interviews, home visits, and workshops with residents conducted by BF Center staff starting from July 2019, aiming to fully obtain the real needs and regeneration suggestions. “The embedded functions were suggested by residents, covering young parents, pupils, multi-hyphenate workers, and the elderly about their demands. Community service was suggested by the elderly and the young, while the startup innovative center was suggested by young residents” (Interviewee No. 14, 8 July 2023). Based on this interview, we found that embedded functions that tend to reflect local needs were raised by residents, especially by young residents whose needs were normally ignored in existing community centers. “Also, these participatory activities helped us identify capable residents, including ones who wanted to start their own business and who wanted to work as volunteers” (Interviewee No. 13, 30 August 2021). Based on participative activities, diverse local needs and capable residents were both identified, which generated useful information on embedded functions and mobilized manpower for the regeneration project.

Then, the regeneration project started. Capable residents and interview participants were invited to join the regenerating process, including fixing the plan, interior design, embedding new functions and services, and decorating the entrance gate. “One day, after I picked up my son from school, I came across the staff. We talked a lot about how we could improve the communal space. Afterword, I participated in the whole regeneration process with my son, including painting the walls. Currently, my son is a frequent user of the space” (Interviewee No. 47, 12 August 2021). The regenerated space became a shared living space for residents and a youth culture that was different from previous community centers. Also, functional arrangements and new operational patterns were developed according to residents’ needs. Functional arrangements contained basic functions that targeted the necessary needs of most residents and customized functions targeting personal needs for residents with special interests.

Post-completion, these functional arrangements required different operational patterns, owing to their different target groups and stakeholders. “The new functions involved public welfare service functions, such as the pantry and exhibition hall which served the whole neighborhood, and profit-making programs, such as the book bar and the yoga studio” (Interviewee No. 14, 8 August 2021). Public welfare services, typically non-profit, were managed by unitary bodies and publicly funded. In contrast, customized profit-making functions were self-financed, necessitating collaborative cooperation among managers and directors. Achieving a balance between these profit-making and non-profit-making functions is crucial to satisfy residents’ needs and effectively utilize communal spaces for the common good. “The arrangements for the profit- and non-profit-making functions were decided based on a series of workshops, covering residents of different age groups, artists, young entrepreneurs, and persons with a portfolio career. We attempted to link this neighborhood to external social networks to get more resources and support. Currently, we identified local needs based on residents’ proposals in Co-Governance Committee meetings” (Interviewee No. 14, 8 August 2024). In this interview, it was discovered that the data on the proportion of public service and profit-making functions used by the BFCD Center was based on information generated from organized activities. Moreover, although residents and stakeholders did not directly participate in the decision-making process, the BFCD Center selectively integrated their opinions and ideas into the identification of communal space issues. In addition, the establishment of Co-Governance Committee meetings was generated and developed from previous participatory activities, which could be viewed as a platform for communication and interaction among residents and different stakeholders.

3.2.2. Mechanisms in Dealing with Conflicts: Consultant Meetings and Co-Governance Committee

During the regeneration process, the working pattern of discussing communal issues with stakeholders via consultant meetings was set up by the BFCD Center to guarantee that different perspectives had been taken into consideration and that collective decision-making was implemented smoothly. “We discussed the details of the regeneration project, involving whether to transform the original layout and constructions or not, and how to adaptively reuse the space. The final design was developed and generated in consultant meetings. We adopted a cost-reduction program which strengthened existing structures, regenerated a fresh air system and wall beautification” (Interviewee No. 13, 12 August 2021). In this regard, consultant meetings were adopted after the implementation of the project to balance different perspectives and to facilitate the completion of the project.

Apart from design strategies, a collaborative operation mode was also developed in consultant meetings. The BFCD Center adopted the Studio Manager Mode to operate the regenerated space, where managers could be either internal or external entrepreneurs, residents, or artists on the condition that they identified with community identity building and community service provision. “An aunt wanted to apply for a room to run a domestic help firm. We tabled her application in the consultant meeting. A [fellow committee member] refused her application at first but encouraged her to connect her business with public service and contribute to the community. [She then] applied again, but this time her company also served as a free rest stop for domestic workers on their noon break. Finally, we approved her application in the next consultant meeting” (Interviewee No. 13, 12 November 2024). In this regard, we observed that the BFCD Center encouraged enrolled managers and capable residents to discuss communal issues or affairs via consultant meetings. These consultant meetings were identified as effective governance methods for communication, negotiation, and mutual support, and they tended to create opportunities for cultivating a sense of communal culture.

After the completion of the project, capable residents were identified based on their attitudes, behaviors, and actions toward communal space issues in organized participatory activities. These capable residents became the target group, which tended to keep an eye on and be willing to participate in future communal space-related issues. These capable residents together with studio managers were mobilized to discuss collective issues through participating in a series of organized consultant meetings. “With the support of residents and stakeholders, we established a Co-Governance Committee to deal with proposing and handling collective communal issues in a participative and collaborative mode with all managers and cooperators” (Interviewee No. 13, 12 November 2024). Based on this interview, we found that the decision-making for the regenerated space was not assigned to a single subject but to an inclusive and collaborative committee, owing to its mix of state-market-civil society stakeholders. “We are still exploring the collaborative mode: each resident and stakeholder tends to willingly participate, actively tackle and positively contribute to communal affairs, so that we could make the community better and better” (Interviewee No. 13, 12 November 2024). This called for having a close-up view of the community and residents, provided that communal services were individually possible and contributed to the community with their power. In this regard, since the area size and spatial quality of communal space was vital for communal life, the current situation of the communal space is largely attributed to its governance mode. In this study, Case B provided a meaningful exploration for balancing social welfare and profit-making business services through regularly organized meetings and for creating a collaborative working platform through forming the Co-Governance Committee.

3.2.3. Mechanisms in Achieving Collective Solutions: Socio-Economic Approaches and External Social Networking (the Establishment of XXL Cooperative Association)

In terms of service provision, public welfare service and commercial business service had disparate provision paths. In terms of public welfare service provision, it highly relied on public funding and state actors, which needed to mobilize volunteers and state financial support for daily routine operation. “Owing to [its status as] state-owned property, [a major required attribute] of the regenerated space was communal space which needed to be open to the whole neighborhood. But we also needed to [include] profit-making functions [to achieve] economic self-sufficiency” (Interviewee No. 14, 18 December 2024). In this regard, profit-making functions and activities needed to be integrated into public service provision functions to achieve daily expenditure.

Apart from the balance of profit- and non-profit-making functions, a decision on the non-profit-making functions was also proposed in the organized workshops and the vision of community development. For community development, the regenerated underground space attempted to provide spaces for the elderly through the provision of an elderly-friendly community center, for the re-employment of laid-off workers through the provision of job opportunities, and for young people with multiple careers through the provision of gatherings and communications for integration into the community (e.g., creating a space for literary and artistic creation owing to the low rent compared with the market price). A resident who retired from a local middle school was keen on crocheting and applied for the role of studio director after the completion of the project. “I was glad to know that there was a communal space for residents to operate. I applied to be the director of a crocheting studio together with my daughter, so we can exhibit our works and teach other people. I am proud to have been in the first batch of space directors” (Interviewee No. 51, 18 November 2024). The first batch of spaces contained 10 studios; correspondingly, the first 10 directors were core directors and 3 of them were residents. Similar studio directors could also be found. For example, a young director who just graduated with a degree in sociology decorated her studio with photos of pet dogs and Zen yards to encourage visitors to care about mental health in an artistic way. Also, a young entrepreneur who was just 11 years old operated a studio with three other grade mates. They invited visitors to play chess for a fee of CNY 2 or watch a self-created performance for 20 min for a fee of CNY 3, with the focus not being on making money but on having fun. This provided a space for residents to demonstrate their interventions in communal life with their artistic works and communal activities, which could facilitate their sense of fulfillment and create opportunities to attract residents to focus on their neighbors, form interest-based groups, and experience something different and interesting.

One resident was a laid-off worker who applied to operate a studio as a café together with her intellectually disabled son who had acquired the skills for making coffee with the help of the Disabled Person’s Federation by the local District Government. They both had found it difficult to get a full-time job or afford the rent to open a shop in the market. “I’ve been living here since I got married. We had not found an affordable space to open a café until we knew that this center offered subsidized studios on the condition of contributing to the community. Now, I serve the community by offering household service and hospice care at discount prices, and my son earns a living through making coffee. I am so relieved and happy” (Interviewee No. 52, 18 November 2024). In this case, the regenerated center offered space for this family and supported their lives, and at the same time supported this community with services at a discount price. The social support was also integrated with economic support, going beyond the social participation of this case by providing activity participation and community group enrollment, and promoting economic participation by providing job opportunities and low-price service provision.

We also interviewed domestic workers who used the space for noon breaks. “It’s so considerate for them to share this space with us. We are always willing to help, such as cleaning, or helping out at busy times” (Interviewee No. 61, 12 August 2021). In addition, these domestic workers started to set up other activities when there was an increase in young visitors, such as a Shanghai dialect teaching corner and blind date parties, which were very popular. After three months, these workers took over some daily routine management responsibilities, such as reception work, opening and closing doors, and switching the lights on and off. In this regard, after receiving kindness, they tended to give back to the community in return. This spontaneous mutual support tended to create opportunities for cultivating a sense of communal culture.

After the completion of the regeneration project, “XXL Cooperative Association was set up to be responsible for the maintenance and management of the space. Apart from this regenerated underground space, we had the other entity space in Xinhua District in Shanghai. And we often join community building activities in other cities” (Interviewee No. 13, 12 August 2021). As the regenerated underground space and space-based activities became increasingly popular (e.g., around 200 annual activities, and an accumulated 90,000 visitors), the XXL Cooperative Association gradually became a well-known public-benefit brand engaging in linking the communal space not only with residents but also 15 young out-of-community startups, and has started to cooperate with partners in other cities. Regularly organized activities included, but were not limited to, themed salons, poem society, oral history community recording, art shows, local dialect learning, reading, chatting, having coffee, self-studying, watching movies, purchasing or sharing idle items, exhibitions and other paid activities. Owing to this popularity, the XXL Cooperative Association started to collaborate with top social media firms (e.g., Red Note) in Shanghai to organize activities, and it quickly became a popular check-in spot in 2021.

Apart from the XXL Cooperative Association’s deep involvement in the implementation of participatory activities (e.g., inter-generational questions and answers, crocheting, baking) and the attraction of startup entrepreneurs and program directors to below-market rents (e.g., weekend film-fests, flea markets, board role-playing games), it also actively explored alternative financial channels to maintain the good condition of the regenerated space. “The operation of this regenerated space could hardly balance financially if solely relied on government purchases and service contracts for funding. That is why we integrated non-profit welfare services with profit-making business under the circumstance of contributing to the community. Also, we accepted crowdfunding from residents and social associations” (Interviewee No. 14, 18 July 2023). In this regard, each stakeholder performed its own functions: for example, state actors and the agency took charge of guidance support and supervision, the BFCD Center was responsible for enacting suitable and feasible operation modes (XXL Cooperative Association) and innovative collaborative patterns in specific WUC neighborhoods, and the responsibilities of capable residents and co-managers lay in actively participating in the consultant meetings as the Co-Governance Committee.

In Case B, three mechanisms could be identified in different stages of the participatory regeneration projects, including identifying local needs through interviews, questionnaires and participatory workshops during regeneration; dealing with conflicts through the organization of consultant meetings and forming a Co-Governance Committee during and after the completion of the project; and achieving collective solutions through integrating social service provision into economic means, rather than searching for alternative funding provision, which was pretty common in ordinary regeneration projects.

Three aspects of communal space governance during and after the regeneration projects are summarized in

Table 3. Key elements associated with participatory regeneration in shaping communal space governance in two case studies.

Aspects of Communal Space Governance	Case A		Case B
	During the Project	After the Project	During the Project	After the Project
Mechanisms in reaching consensus in identifying issues	- Residents’ Committee organized activities - CNS organized educational parentkid interactive workshops and activities	- CNS organized neighborly interactive gardening activities (e.g., seed drifting, exchanging plants) - CNS organized cognitive training activities for teenagers and their parents to take care of the neighborhood and the vulnerable	- Questionnaires - Interviews - Participatory workshops and activities	- Participating in organized activities - Applying for studio managers - Raising service needs towards studio managers
Mechanisms in dealing with conflicts	- The reputation and resource mobilization of the Residents’ Committee leader	- The resource mobilization of the CNS center, cooperative consultation platform, and cultivating community leaders (during the period of cooperating with government via purchasing contract) - The reputation and resource mobilization of the Residents’ Committee leader (at ordinary times)	- Participatory workshops and activities	- Consultant meetings with comanagers and capable residents - Forming a CoGovernance Committee
Mechanisms in achieving collective solutions	- Inviting likeminded participants to join collective solution related gardening activities	- Inviting Communist Party members and FlowerFriend group members to collective solution related activities - Social networking support	- Participatory workshops and activities	- Integrating social service provision into economic means - Social networking support

. Case A demonstrated continuity in communal space governance both during and after regeneration projects, directly extending the participatory strategies employed during the project. In contrast, Case B’s post project communal space governance was cultivated from these initial participatory strategies but further integrated local needs, leading to innovative informal institutional arrangements and socio-economic strategies for addressing communal issues. Crucially, the social networking support generated from participatory regeneration projects proved vital for ordinary communal space governance in both cases.

4. Discussion

4.1. Nuanced Path Dependence of Relying on State Actors in Communal Space Governance

This study’s findings contribute to our understanding of the evolving meaning of communal space, viewed through the lens of governing the commons, within the context of emerging participatory regeneration in WUC neighborhoods in China. Apart from the recognition of the value of communal space in providing room for residents’ autonomy [59], as well as the value of the physical improvement of the communal space in cultivating collective identities and collaboration in WUC neighborhoods [7,15], this study shows that the subsequent governance of communal spaces after participatory regeneration in China could enable us to understand state interventions and social associations’ struggles in cultivating collective self-sustenance. This demonstrates two nuanced paths for allowing civil society and market forces to participate in urban regeneration and govern obsolete communal spaces in state-dominant WUC neighborhoods.

The initiation and promotion of participatory regeneration, and the involvement of social associations and state actors, were both strong interventions at the beginning of the two cases. However, two nuanced paths emerged after both projects were completed. In Case A, the communal space governance mode after the regeneration project basically had a close connection with state actors. Although efforts were made to build a collaborative platform and social networks, these efforts rapidly lost efficacy when public funding support via state–social association cooperative contracts was lost. In Case B, the communal space governance mode after the regeneration project developed innovative mechanisms (studio managers mode, consultant meetings, co-governance committee, and socio-economic means in service provision) for reaching a consensus on identifying issues, dealing with conflicts, and achieving collective solutions, meaning that there were few challenges when public funding support was lost.

Insofar as the acceptance of communal space governance in WUC neighborhoods does not imply a general appreciation of the independent operation of communal space, and because the support mostly centered on the temporary use of underutilized communal spaces, the tenure of communal space governance in Shanghai is still fragile. However, the acknowledgement and support of communal space governance in WUC neighborhoods makes possible the emergence of new spaces and practical functions with selective interventions. This provides an alternative governance mode for communal space in the unitary state structure in urban informal governance [60]. Its informality lies in its provision of decentralized and non-bureaucratic solutions at below-market rent for residents and young entrepreneurs, which are appreciated by the community. Also, the communal space governance mode highlights its important role as a civic venue for a neighborhood with an inherited collective culture, which could be viewed as the continuation of communal life facilitated by civil society and market forces that advocate social autonomy and personal choices [61], rather than the state actors that advocate a conventional sense of collectivism [62].

4.2. Enhancing Effectiveness of Communal Space Governance via Adopting Digital Participation Technologies and Building Supportive Networks

Urban public spaces as common goods are historically marked by inequalities in obtaining resources, making the exploration of public space governance meaningful to understanding reduced inequalities [63]. Beyond collaborative management, the adoption of digital participation technology in cultural heritage conservation encompasses parametric modeling workflows, interdisciplinary technological integration, and collaborative assessment [64]. Recently, scholars have investigated the adoption of digital participation technologies in urban regeneration, such as the positive impacts of social media (e.g., Weibo and Xiaohongshu) in influencing participatory regeneration in heritage communities [65,66], the vital role of location-based social media big data for sustainable urban planning [67], the supportive usage of GIS in urban regeneration [68], and the advantages of Location-Based Social Networking Services and POI data in testing the effectiveness of urban regeneration [69]. This study demonstrates that adopting digital participation technologies, such as using WeChat (version 7.0.12 and above) groups for sharing information, exchanging ideas and reaching a consensus, can lead to effective participation in regeneration projects, particularly during the planning and management stages. This also contributes to effective routine communal space governance—including identifying local needs, managing conflicts and solving problems—by streamlining participation. This investigation suggests that planners should consider participatory planning strategies that can extend into normal space management and integrate conflict resolution and problem-solving mechanisms into these strategies.

In addition, communal space in WUC neighborhoods was limited in area and isolated from the external public space system, making it difficult to reinforce its value and generalize its implications. This limitation highlights the role of external support and enhanced social values in sustainable community development [63]. External social networking tends to mobilize and facilitate more intensive audiences and potential entrepreneurs that are more willing to engage in innovative endeavors and experimental attempts [70]. In Case A, participatory interest-based activities targeted the elderly, pupils, and family members who tended to contribute their time and local knowledge to communal space governance for a sense of fulfillment, collective honor and educational purposes. While external social networking could offer supplementary support from retired workers, stay-at-home parents and students in other neighborhoods who enjoy gardening, participation and primary responsibility largely remain confined to these local community groups. In Case B, participants tended to have a broader range of people apart from the elderly and pupils (e.g., laid-off workers, young and middle-aged entrepreneurs), which tended to generate and develop innovative strategies and social values. Also, the establishment of external social networking required government participation and effective governance through sharing power with social associations [71,72]. “We supported a Deputies of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress proposal on the promotion of the clarification and integration of departments and regions at different levels through the case of the community garden in the spring of 2020 and a citizen garden-related proposal raised by a Member of the Shanghai Municipal Political Consultative Conference on building community planning and gardening institutional improvements” (Interviewee No. 12, 3 December 2024). This evidence demonstrates that informal external social networking influences formal institutional arrangements in Case A, which could be viewed as an effective mechanism for achieving effective communal space governance.

4.3. Cultivating a New Political Acceptance of Autonomously Organized Communal Space Governance Based on Socio-Economic Participatory Means

When examining the influencing role of participation in shaping the governance of urban commons, studies have highlighted the vital role of focusing on the changing relationships between state and non-state actors for identifying the changing nature of participation [45]. The first open street community garden in Shanghai was based on the collaboration between the CNS center and residents. In contrast, the community gardens in WUC neighborhoods were highly reliant on the grassroot government and its administrative agencies (Residents’ Committee), owing to the continuity of administrative governance modes and local work-unit residents’ continuous feeling of dependency on state actors, which stemmed from the socialist era. Based on case studies, we found that the CNS center took pains to improve the environment through training and empowering like-minded residents to become responsible and self-sustained collective actors, while the BFCD center exerted all its energy in revitalizing underutilized communal space through mobilizing and encouraging capable residents to be responsible and mutually beneficial partners. These empirical findings not only echo the discussion on the vital role of communal space, which is beyond a static and physical spatial resource, and points to its contribution to political strategy and social collective action via the practice of communing [73]; it also points to the cultivation of a new political acceptance of autonomously organized communal space governance in the post-socialist WUC neighborhoods.

Scholars have emphasized the vital role of public space improvements in low-income neighborhoods and demonstrated that they are an important component of urban development [74]. In line with theoretical discussion, the empirical cases in this study show an innovative acceptance by the grassroots government’s neighborhood agencies (Residents’ Committees) of collective communal space governance in WUC neighborhoods, which enables civil society and market actors to engage. The first part of this achievement lies in social associations’ continuous contribution to the cultivation of active social participation in communal space-related issues. Pioneer projects could ease things for communal space governance by increasing the acceptance of communal space governance in WUC neighborhoods in the future. However, there is a need to pay attention to the conditions that brought these cases into existence, namely, the grassroots government withdrawing from its dominant role in communal space governance and a shortage of public funding. Still, Case B exemplifies the turn toward the “enabling” governance and the collaboration between civil society actors and private actors in communal space governance. Another part of this achievement lies in the collective social life and communal culture-specific situation of WUC neighborhoods in post-socialist Chinese cities. Since the socio-economic status of residents was relatively vulnerable compared with commodity housing, as residents tend to rely more on mutual help and social support within the neighborhood, reaching a consensus in communal space governance requires the balance of diverse demands from different stakeholders by making good use of the commercial value and social value of communal space, even if the enterprises could not obtain a business license owing to the collective ownership of the communal space. This opens the possibility of involving civil society actors and private actors in communal space governance.

At the neighborhood level, the commons provide a setting that fosters social value by facilitating neighborly activities and social networks. They also possess an institutional value, safeguarding them from powerful market forces and state actors, and a spatial value, as they are actively involved in reclaiming, constructing, managing and sustaining various functions. This study further investigates the intersection of sustainable development and the governance of the commons, recognizing that the latter operates within diverse and intricate contexts, characterized by varying degrees of power and influence [44,75]. This study expands the examination of common resource use beyond material aspects to encompass community engagement with the social, cultural, political, economic, environmental and relational issues involved in the governance of the commons. To build these connections, we begin by distinguishing between “common pool resources” (referring to the biophysical and material characteristics of commons) and “common property” (encompassing a set of rules, norms, and conventions) within the literature on commons, underscoring the crucial role of institutional arrangements and social relations in preserving the commonness and reshaping the nature of the commons [76]. Various types of urban commons have been studied because of their similar issues, including urban gardens, shared community amenities and enclosed public spaces [77]. Based on the perspective of common property, the diverse ways in which actors and groups seek to gain and maintain access to resources are clarified, helping us explore factors that facilitate the achievement of better collaboration regarding community engagement, especially in the context of urban regeneration.

5. Conclusions

This research examines two distinct models of communal space governance. These models emerged from two types of participatory regeneration projects, each devised by a different social organization, to address obsolete communal spaces in post-socialist WUC neighborhoods. This was achieved by establishing a maintenance management platform and a co-governance committee to foster collaboration with public–private–civil society stakeholders. This study posits that the evolving meaning of civic space, stemming from the cultivation of a collective, self-sustaining communal space in post-socialist WUC neighborhoods during participatory regeneration, has led to a new political acceptance of autonomously organized communal space governance, based on socio-economic participatory methods. Furthermore, this study underscores the vital role of informal stakeholder–consultant meetings and a co-governance committee in ensuring smooth participation and effective communal space governance. This effective relies on innovative resource mobilization by social organizations, the adoption of innovative digital technologies, and innovative operational mechanisms to balance welfare service provision and commercial profits for self-financing. Moreover, facilitating mechanisms derived from empirical cases in Shanghai could be generalized to other post-socialist neighborhoods undertaking participatory regeneration to address communal space issues and experiencing strong state interventions in empowering and sharing responsibilities with social associations. To effectively identify local needs and resolve conflicts, planners could integrate participatory strategies like workshops and consultant meetings into the management of regenerated communal spaces. Community development practitioners could also foster facilitating mechanisms to strengthen participation and communal space governance tools (e.g., digital participation technologies, workshops, and consultant meetings) for improved neighborhood service delivery and collective communal goods management.

This study has several limitations. First, the research scope was limited. A deeper understanding of participatory regeneration’s influence on communal space governance would necessitate further investigation into WUC neighborhoods in other Chinese post-socialist cities. Second, the limited sample size of interviewees impacts the findings, as more participants would yield more convincing results. Third, there was selection bias in the interviewee sample, as participants were chosen through a combination of snowball and selective sampling (interviewees were invited in communal spaces rather than through a door-to-door survey). Fourth, the study’s representativeness is limited, and there is bias from selecting only successful cases to capture the influencing role of participatory regeneration in shaping communal space governance. Future studies could broaden the research scope to include other post-socialist cities facing similar issues of obsolete communal space and revived communal life. They should also diversify the interviewee pool to involve more varied socio-economic residents (e.g., local vs. migrant groups) and incorporate both successful and unsuccessful cases for a more comprehensive exploration.