Resilience Renewal Design Strategy for Aging Communities in Traditional Historical and Cultural Districts: Reflections on the Practice of the Sizhou’an Community in China
Abstract
1. Introduction
- (1)
- The resilience and vitality of these communities have been further diminished in the post-pandemic era.
- (2)
- A critical question arises: how can we effectively balance the protection and development of cultural districts during design updates, given the absence of a comprehensive and specific guiding framework?
- (3)
- In practice, the community renewal model remains predominantly government-led, lacking detailed policy guidance and a clear division of responsibilities. Additionally, low property management fees and insufficient alternative revenue sources in aging communities have led to a shortage of funds for community renewal. This raises the question: where will the funding for independent renewal originate?
- (4)
- The utilization rate of community public spaces remains low, and the conditions for environmental greening and sanitation are inadequate.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design
2.2. Resilience Analysis Framework for Aging Communities
2.3. Case Overview
2.4. Analysis of the Research Cases
2.4.1. Analysis of Social Factors
2.4.2. Analysis of Built Environments
2.4.3. Analysis of Economic Factors
2.4.4. Analysis of Ecological Factors
2.5. Comprehensive Analysis Based on the Resilience Analysis Framework of Aging Communities
3. Results
3.1. Stimulating the Vitality of the Elderly Population and Restructuring the Resilience of the Social Structure
3.2. Improving Community Space Environment and Enhancing Built Environment Resilience
3.2.1. Optimizing the Community Road System
3.2.2. Renewal of Architectural Space and Facilities
3.2.3. Adapting Aging and Renewal of Building Spaces
3.3. Leveraging the Advantages of Regional Culture and Deepening the Resilience of Industrial Economy
3.4. Building Community Garden Farms to Enhance Ecological Resilience
3.5. Mechanisms for Ensuring Resilience Governance and Renewal Implementation in Aging Communities
4. Discussion
4.1. Effectiveness of Multidimensional Resilience Strategies
4.2. Feasibility and Challenges of Updating Modes
4.3. Research Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Correction Statement
References
- The Fujian Provincial People’s Government of China. What Is a Historical and Cultural District? Available online: https://www.fujian.gov.cn/hdjl/hdjlzsk/zjt/qt/202409/t20240910_6514543.htm (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- Yu, W.T.; Zhou, B.; Li, Z.B.; Fan, Y.; Luan, Y.F. Analysis of the difference of elderly activity venues selection in built residential areas: A case study of Dalian. Mod. Urban Res. 2020, 11, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, M.Y. lmpact of urban residential aging modification on the health of household elderly: Analysis based on multilevel linear model. Urban Probl. 2022, 325, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.M.; Wang, C.Y. Research on exterior environmental design with good social atmosphere of elderly-friendly communities: A case study of a community in Beijing. Shanghai Urban Plan. Rev. 2020, 36, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Fang, K.L.; He, H.Y.; Yuan, Y. Research on the strategy of healthy community micro-regeneration from the perspective of age-friendly and child-friendly community: A case study of Sanyanjing community in Guangzhou. Shanghai Urban Plan. Rev. 2021, 1, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guida, C.; Carpentieri, G. Quality of life in the urban environment and primary health services for the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic: An application to the city of Milan (Italy). Cities 2021, 110, 103038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahendra, S.; Shilpi, M. Improvised rental housing to make cities COVID safe in India. Cities 2020, 106, 102922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parikh, P.; Diep, L.; Gupte, J.; Lakhanpaul, M. COVID-19 challenges and WASH in informal settlements: Integrated action supported by the sustainable development goals. Cities 2020, 107, 102871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reza, B. Pandemic and the planning of resilient cities and regions. Cities 2020, 106, 102929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenneth, L.; Etienne, N.; Tony, B. ‘Transforming Freetown’: Dilemmas of planning and development in a West African City. Cities 2020, 101, 102694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L.; Wang, Q. Concerns on provision of medical and aging service facilities from planning and design for adaptation to the elderly in community: A case of Xiamen. Urban Dev. Stud. 2020, 27, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
- Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y. On the suitability of assessment tools for guiding communities towards disaster resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 100, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shomon, S. Resilience resistance: The challenges and implications of urban resilience implementation. Cities 2020, 103, 102763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexander, D. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 2707–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boschma, R. Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Reg. Stud. 2014, 49, 733–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendizabal, M.; Heidrich, O.; Feliú, E.; García-Blanco, G.; Mendizabal, A. Stimulating urban transition and transformation to achieve sustainable and resilient cities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 410–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meerow, S.; Stults, M. Comparing conceptualizations of urban climate resilience in theory and practice. Sustainability 2016, 8, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satterthwaite, D.; Dodman, D. Towards resilience and transformation for cities within a finite planet. Environ. Urban. 2013, 25, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 629–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzo, C.; Aliaksandra, B. Understandings of urban resilience meanings and principles across Europe. Cities 2021, 108, 102985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, M.; Wendy, S.; Lauren, R.; Hartmut, F. Keywords in planning: What do we mean by ‘community resilience’? Int. Plan. Stud. 2016, 21, 348–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alessandro, Z.; Omar, K.; Gian Paolo, C. Resourcefulness quantification approach for resilient communities and countries. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 46, 101509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geoff, A.W.; Markus, S.; Rike, S. The resilience and vulnerability of remote mountain communities: The case of Vent, Austrian Alps. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 372–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutter, S.L. The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA. Nat. Hazards 2015, 80, 741–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiangtan Municipal People’s Government of China. Xiangtan City Population Census Yearbook. Available online: https://xttj.xiangtan.gov.cn/uploadfiles/202305/2023052314510562905.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- Xie, B.; Wei, W.; Zhou, J. Senior community space evaluation and planning. Planners 2015, 31, 5–11+33. [Google Scholar]
- The Central Committee of the Communist Party and the State Council of China. Opinions on Strengthening Aging Work. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202111/24/content_5653181.html (accessed on 10 April 2022).
- Levasseur, M.; Dubois, M.F.; Généreux, M.; Menec, V.; Raina, P.; Roy, M.; Gabaude, C.; Couturier, Y.; St-Pierre, C. Capturing how age-friendly communities foster positive health, social participation and health equity: A study protocol of key components and processes that promote population health in aging Canadians. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.Z.; Lu, R.; Chen, G.Q.; Lu, L.; Tong, X. Feature creation and revitalization of the old urban area based on local culture: A case study on the urban design of western Pujiang area. City Plan. Rev. 2020, 44, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The General Office of the State Council of China. Opinions on Developing the Silver Hair Economy and Enhancing the Welfare of the Elderly. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/202401/content_6926087.html (accessed on 10 April 2022).
- The General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council. Opinions on Promoting the Construction of New Urban Infrastructure and Building Resilient Cities. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202412/content_6991173.htm (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- The People’s Government of Hunan Province in China. Building Resilient and Safe Cities to Enhance the “Happiness” of Urban Residents. Available online: https://www.hunan.gov.cn/hnszf/hnyw/sxsp/202408/t20240804_33420794.html (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- The People’s Government of Xiangtan City in China. Comprehensively Promote the Construction of Sponge Cities, Making Cities More Resilient and Livable. Available online: https://www.xiangtan.gov.cn/109/171/172/content_1340029.html (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- Fu, Q.; Zhang, X. Promoting community resilience through disaster education: Review of community-based interventions with a focus on teacher resilience and well-being. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0296393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Xu, X.; Wang, X.; Lin, Q. Research on micro-renewal of green space in Beijing Hutong from the perspective of residents’ spontaneous renewal—Exploration in Dashilar area. Landsc. Archit. 2019, 26, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Assessment Tools/Models | Year | Study Location | Dimension |
---|---|---|---|
Community Resilience (CRC) | 2015 | Australia | Emergency services, self-reliance, mitigation, economic capital, risk awareness, access to information, social cohesion, recovery potential, and natural capital |
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) | 2015 | United States | Social, financial, natural, infrastructure, political, cultural, and human capital |
Community Resilience Framework (FCR) | 2014 | Global | Knowledge and health, social cohesion and connectedness, infrastructure, economy, and natural assets |
Community Integrated Risk Reduction Indicators (ICBRR) | 2012 | Indonesia | Governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response |
Community Benchmark Resilience Indicators (BRIC) | 2010 | United States | Social, economic, institutional, community capital, institutions, housing/infrastructure, and environmental |
PEOPLES Evaluation System | 2010 | United States | Population, environmental, governmental services, infrastructure, community competence, economic development, and socio-cultural capital |
Coastal Resilience Index (CRI) | 2010 | United States | Economic development, social capital, infrastructure, transportation, community planning, mitigation measures, business plans, and social systems |
Variables | Questionnaire Projects | Descriptive |
---|---|---|
Social factors (SF) | ||
SF01 | Age | 1 = 60 yrs. and above, 2 = 15–59 yrs., 3 = 0–14 yrs. |
SF02 | Youth people outflow | 1 = Very high, 2 = High, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Low, 5 = Very low |
SF03 | Employment situation | 1 = Retirement, 2 = Unemployment, 3 = Employment |
SF04 | Are you satisfied with community management? | 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied |
SF05 | Do you participate in community activities? | 1 = Very rare, 2 = Rare, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Frequent, 5 = Very frequent |
SF06 | Community sense of belonging | 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied |
SF07 | Are you satisfied with the emergency precautions in the community? | 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied |
SF08 | Are you satisfied with the community hygienic measures? | 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied |
SF09 | Are you satisfied with psychological counseling? | 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied |
Built environments (BE) | ||
BE01 | Is the density between buildings reasonable? | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
BE02 | Are you satisfied with the maintenance of the building? | 1 = Very dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied |
BE03 | Is the space functional zoning reasonable? | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
BE04 | Is transportation convenient? | 1 = Very inconvenient, 2 = Inconvenient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Convenient, 5 = Very convenient |
BE05 | Is the age-friendly design sufficient? | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
BE06 | Is the quantity of infrastructure sufficient? | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
BE07 | Is the distribution of infrastructure reasonable? | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
BE08 | Is the multifunctionality of space sufficient? | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
BE09 | Is the distribution of medical facilities reasonable? | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
Economic factors (EF) | ||
EF01 | Monthly income situation | 1 = Below 1000 CNY, 2 = 1000–2999 CNY, 3 = 3000–4999 CNY, 4 = 5000–10,000 CNY, 5 = Above 10,000 CNY |
EF02 | Education level | 1 = Uneducated, 2 = Primary school, 3 = Junior high school, 4 = High school, 5 = College or above |
EF03 | Do you have any skills? | 1 = None, 2 = 1 item, 3 = 2 items, 4 = 3 items, 5 = 4 or more items |
EF04 | Is the travel distance reasonable? | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
EF05 | What is the status of historical and cultural protection? | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
EF06 | What is the situation of urban community agriculture? | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
EF07 | Economic diversification situation | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
Ecological environments (EE) | ||
EE01 | Greening rate situation | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
EE02 | Plant diversity situation | 1 = Very insufficient, 2 = Insufficient, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Sufficient, 5 = Very sufficient |
EE03 | Environmental pollution situation | 1 = Very serious, 2 = Serious, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Mild, 5 = Very mild |
EE04 | Utilize local resources and space | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
EE05 | Resource sustainability situation | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
EE06 | Environmental resource management situation | 1 = Very unreasonable, 2 = Unreasonable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Reasonable, 5 = Very reasonable |
Variables | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SF01 | 116 | 1 | 3 | 1.60 | 0.542 |
SF02 | 116 | 1 | 4 | 2.41 | 0.647 |
SF03 | 116 | 1 | 3 | 2.49 | 0.818 |
SF04 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.85 | 0.760 |
SF05 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.89 | 0.882 |
SF06 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 3.16 | 0.798 |
SF07 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.78 | 0.686 |
SF08 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.94 | 0.772 |
SF09 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.97 | 0.721 |
BE01 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.69 | 0.715 |
BE02 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.70 | 0.783 |
BE03 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.85 | 0.837 |
BE04 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.76 | 0.776 |
BE05 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.67 | 0.811 |
BE06 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.73 | 0.750 |
BE07 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.72 | 0.683 |
BE08 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.73 | 0.738 |
BE09 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.76 | 0.753 |
EF01 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.57 | 1.097 |
EF02 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 3.10 | 1.050 |
EF03 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.75 | 0.853 |
EF04 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.85 | 0.794 |
EF05 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.50 | 0.797 |
EF06 | 116 | 1 | 4 | 2.25 | 0.756 |
EF07 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.61 | 0.789 |
EE01 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.56 | 0.749 |
EE02 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.49 | 0.763 |
EE03 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.64 | 0.796 |
EE04 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.63 | 0.775 |
EE05 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.61 | 0.842 |
EE06 | 116 | 1 | 5 | 2.66 | 0.802 |
Sum | 116 | 73.00 | 101.00 | 84.1466 | 5.06867 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ren, M.; Chai, N. Resilience Renewal Design Strategy for Aging Communities in Traditional Historical and Cultural Districts: Reflections on the Practice of the Sizhou’an Community in China. Buildings 2025, 15, 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060965
Ren M, Chai N. Resilience Renewal Design Strategy for Aging Communities in Traditional Historical and Cultural Districts: Reflections on the Practice of the Sizhou’an Community in China. Buildings. 2025; 15(6):965. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060965
Chicago/Turabian StyleRen, Minjie, and Ning Chai. 2025. "Resilience Renewal Design Strategy for Aging Communities in Traditional Historical and Cultural Districts: Reflections on the Practice of the Sizhou’an Community in China" Buildings 15, no. 6: 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060965
APA StyleRen, M., & Chai, N. (2025). Resilience Renewal Design Strategy for Aging Communities in Traditional Historical and Cultural Districts: Reflections on the Practice of the Sizhou’an Community in China. Buildings, 15(6), 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060965