Land 11 01202 PDF

land
Review
Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal: A Holistic and State
of the Art Literature Review
Kaijian Li 1 , Ruopeng Huang 1 , Guiwen Liu 1, *, Asheem Shrestha 2 and Xinyue Fu 1
1 School of Management Science and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China;
likaijian@cqu.edu.cn (K.L.); ruopenghuang@cqu.edu.cn (R.H.); xinyuefu@cqu.edu.cn (X.F.)
2 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia;
asheem.shrestha@deakin.edu.au
* Correspondence: gwliu@cqu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-13883105556
Abstract: In the new era of sustainable urban development, neighbourhood renewal has received
increasing attention. Social capital, which can be defined as the value embedded in the relationship
between residents, plays a significant role in the process of neighbourhood renewal. However,
within the current neighbourhood renewal knowledge domain, there is a lack of clear and systematic
understanding of the various components that make up social capital, how they are formed, and how
they impact neighbourhood renewal. With the rise in neighbourhood renewal projects worldwide, it
has become increasingly important to facilitate better knowledge in this area. To this end, this study
focuses on filling this knowledge gap. First, based on the review of 84 journal papers related to social
capital in neighbourhood renewal, a research framework is developed for analysing social capital in
the context of neighbour renewal. Using this framework as a lens, a critical review of the literature is
then conducted. Finally, through an in-depth discussion, this study presents the main concepts of
social capital, its formulation and its association with neighbourhood renewal. This review paper can
be used as an important reference for researchers globally interested in the topic of social capital in
neighbourhood renewal.
Citation: Li, K.; Huang, R.; Liu, G.; Keywords: neighbourhood renewal; social capital; review
Shrestha, A.; Fu, X. Social Capital in
Neighbourhood Renewal: A Holistic
and State of the Art Literature
Review. Land 2022, 11, 1202. https:// 1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/land11081202
Neighbourhood renewal has become one of the most important strategies for urban
Academic Editor: Maria Rosa Trovato development [1]. As an effective means for maintaining social sustainability, the topic of
Received: 28 June 2022
neighbourhood renewal has received ongoing attention from researchers and academics [2].
Accepted: 28 July 2022
Neighbourhood renewal is defined as a strategy that uses a holistic approach to improve
Published: 30 July 2022
deprived neighbourhoods by focusing on a series of fundamental problems and examining
them from a sustainability perspective [3]. Neighbourhood renewal can help the members
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of the local communities to live and work in a better environment. Many cities around the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
world are now embracing this strategy to improve land values and environmental quality.
published maps and institutional affil-
Particularly, the old inner-city neighbourhoods have experienced a redevelopment process
iations.
which promotes the quality of living in older neighbourhoods to catch up with other areas
of the city [4].
Although neighbourhood renewal is in full swing in cities worldwide, conflicts within
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
neighbourhood renewal projects remain an important deterrent to their success. Empirical
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. evidence highlights several challenges which include conflicts between the public and
This article is an open access article private sectors [5], issues related to population dynamics and gentrification [6], and dishar-
distributed under the terms and mony among different interest groups [7]. For example, in China, policies in many cities
conditions of the Creative Commons state that a new neighbourhood programme requires the full approval of the residents
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// before it can be implemented [8,9]. This means that the disapproval of a few residents
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ could lead to the project being put on hold. In 2010, eight old neighbourhood areas were
4.0/). included in the first batch of urban renewal plans put forth by the government in Shenzhen.
Land 2022, 11, 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081202 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2022, 11, 1202 2 of 27
Ten years on, plans for four of these neighbourhood areas are still being negotiated and
work has only just begun on the renewal of the other four projects [10]. One of the core
reasons that prevented the adoption of the renewal proposals was the difference of opinions
among the residents and their willingness to participate in these programs. Similarly, in
many other neighbourhood renewal projects in China, it can be seen that the resident-led
renewal of older neighbourhoods has issues of non-participation and inaction on the part
of the grassroots governments, whereas the private companies have been unsuccessful
in obtaining government approval for collecting property fees and renewal costs from
the residents.
Adverse relationships within both homogeneous and heterogeneous stakeholder
groups can hinder the completion of renewal projects [11]. Therefore, cooperation is seen
as one of the primary goals of neighbourhood renewal projects for ensuring the long-term
development of the community.
Social capital can be defined as the goodwill available to individuals or groups and
it lies in the structure of their social relationships [12]. In the context of neighbourhood
renewal, social capital can help communities establish a social context, which can gen-
erate social norms and general trust, and consequently contribute toward cooperative
behaviour [13,14]. However, high levels of social capital among homogeneous groups
may lead to cognitive lock-ins resulting in divergent opinions and conflicts [15]. This
phenomenon is often observed in renewal projects, and it has affected their successful
completion. This, to a large extent, explains the occurrence of conflicts and non-cooperation
in the renewal process described in the example provided above. Moreover, the gradual
development of the relationships between the government, businesses, and residents in
the renewal process influences the cooperation that can be achieved, and ultimately, it
enables the successful completion of the renewal projects. Therefore, social capital in
neighbourhoods is critical to the success of renewal projects [16].
Current studies have now begun to examine the collaboration and the interaction
between multiple stakeholders in neighbourhood renewal. However, there are limited
studies that have measured the quality and performance of these collaborations from the
perspective of social capital. There are two major research gaps. Firstly, there is still a
lack of consensus between scholars regarding the concept of social capital. The concept
of social capital in neighbourhood renewal is still ambiguous because researchers from
different disciplines have not come to an agreement on how it can be defined. For example,
it is still unclear whether social capital is a collective asset or an individual asset, if it is
functional or not, and if it occurs at the micro- or macro-level? These questions remain
unanswered within social capital theory, and this is the result of disparate forms of social
capital that are defined in various research contexts. In the context of neighbourhood
renewal, a universal concept of social capital is indeed viable as well as essential. It is
viable because the types of stakeholders in neighbourhood renewal are already known,
which means that the types of relationships among stakeholders are also predetermined.
Considering that these relationships are major resources of social capital, they can facilitate
establishing a universal concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Establishing
a universal concept is essential because not only can it provide researchers with a better
direction to explore this research area, but also, having a clear definition allows better
analysis of social capital in neighbourhood renewal projects that can contribute towards
improving the value from these projects.
Secondly, the way that social capital is examined and governed in the context of neigh-
bourhood renewal needs to be explored further. Although there has been some notable
research in this area, some gaps remain. For example, Aldrich and Meyer, from the perspec-
tive of social capital, presented several policy recommendations for community resilience
through instruments such as group meetings, time banking, and community currency [17].
However, the proposed instruments cannot always be directly applied in the context of
neighbourhood renewal. This is because current studies focus primarily on improving
the community goals in neighbourhood renewal projects while ignoring some of the key
Land 2022, 11, 1202 3 of 27
project management goals. It is important to note that successful neighbourhood renewal

projects require not only community management objectives but also construction project
management objectives to be fulfilled [18,19]. Therefore, to assess whether project goals
have been achieved, it is important that an integrated approach focussing on community
goals as well as project management targets is used.
This paper aims to define and explain the concept of social capital in the context of
neighbourhood renewal and with this, present an analysis framework to assess project
performance from the perspective of social capital theory.
This research is conducted in two parts. The first part describes the literature review
methodology and then, develops a research framework which is used as a lens to explore the
relevant body of selected papers for analysing social capital in the context of neighbourhood
renewal. The second part of the research provides a critical review of the existing knowledge
to scrutinise and define social capital and the role it plays in neighbourhood renewal.
Through a rigorous analysis of the literature, this study presents a discussion on three
key questions:
(i) How can social capital be defined in neighbourhood renewal?
(ii) How is social capital formed during the neighbourhood renewal process?
(iii) How do social capital and neighbourhood renewal impact each other?
Answering these questions will provide some important contributions to this new
research area. This study will serve as an important reference for researchers globally
that are interested in this increasingly important topic within social sustainability and
urban development. Specifically, it will provide the important groundwork for future
research with a better and clearer definition of what social capital means for neighbourhood
renewal. Moreover, answering the key research questions will help practitioners assess
project performance through the lens of social capital, which can enable project teams to
better manage neighbourhood renewal projects.
2. Literature Search and Research Framework Development

Papers were collected from Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection
which includes A&HCI, SSCI, ESCI, CPCI-SSH, CPCI-S, and SCI-expanded databases. The
time span for the search was set from 2001 to 2022. The keywords used in the search
were drawn from the relevant literature [20] that discussed the definition and concepts
of social capital and neighbourhood renewal. Previous research has used a wide range
of interchangeable terms when referring to social capital and neighbourhood renewal. A
list of terms that are used interchangeably and in combination was noted and entered as
keywords in the WoS database. These included: ‘social capital’ or ‘reciprocity’ or ‘informal
control’ or ‘trust’ or ‘social cohesion’ or ‘social organisation’ or ‘social interaction’ or ‘social
network’, and ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘neighborhood’ or ‘city’ or ‘urban’ or ‘community’ or
‘block’, and ‘renewal’ or ‘regeneration’. A total of 834 papers were retrieved.
The first round of screening was then done based on three criteria: (i) the written
language, (ii) the document type, and (iii) relevance. Only papers written in English
were considered. Moreover, only peer-reviewed conference papers and journal articles
were selected to ensure the reliability of the papers to be analysed. The abstracts of these
papers were browsed to ensure the topic of the paper was related to social capital and
neighbourhood renewal. Based on the above criteria, 699 papers were excluded.
The remaining 135 papers were further refined through the second round of screening
which involved carefully reviewing the abstracts, keywords, and introduction sections of
the papers. From this screening process, it was seen that whereas some articles did touch on
the topic of neighbourhood renewal and social capital, their focus was not directly relevant
to our research. Thus, a further 51 papers were excluded. A total of 84 remaining papers
were then used in the analysis.
With the papers selected for analysis, the research framework was designed specifically
aiming at answering the three research questions posed in this study. In doing so, firstly this
paper drew from Esser’s classification of social capital [21]. According to Esser, social capital
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 27
Land 2022, 11, 1202 With the papers selected for analysis, the research framework was designed specifi- 4 of 27
cally aiming at answering the three research questions posed in this study. In doing so,
firstly this paper drew from Esser’s classification of social capital [21]. According to Esser,
social
can capital can
be divided intobe‘relational
divided into ‘relational
capital’ capital’and
(individual) (individual) and ‘system
‘system capital’ capital’[21].
(collective) (col-
lective) [21]. Esser argued that system capital, which includes
Esser argued that system capital, which includes trust, system morality, and system control,trust, system morality, and
system
has control,on
an influence hasthe ancreation
influence on the creation
of individual socialofcapital.
individualThis social
meanscapital. This social
that system means
that system
capital can help social capitalan
to generate can help to generate
individual’s an individual’s
social capital. Therefore,social
using capital. Therefore,
Esser’s argument,
using
this Esser’s
study argument,
identified system this studyasidentified
capital system of
the formulation capital
socialascapital
the formulation of social
in neighbourhood
capital in
renewal. neighbourhood
Moreover, we replaced renewal.socialMoreover,
structure we withreplaced social structure
system control in order to with
makesystem
the
control in order to make the formulation elements more
formulation elements more meaningful for neighbourhood renewal projects. In addition tomeaningful for neighbourhood
renewal
Esser, thisprojects.
study also In addition
drew from to Esser, this studyframework
the theoretical also drew from the theoretical
proposed framework
by Esperanza et al.
toproposed
define the byclassification
Esperanza etofal.individualto define the classification
social capital. This of includes
individual social
three capital. This
categories: (i)
includes social
structural three categories: (i) structural
capital, (ii) relational social
social capital,
capital, and(ii)
(iii)relational
cognitivesocial
social capital, and (iii)
capital [22]. In
particular,
cognitive structural
social capital social
[22].capital consists of
In particular, three subcategories:
structural social capitalbonding,
consists of bridging, and
three subcat-
linking
egories: social capital.
bonding, The concepts
bridging, and linkingand meaning of these
social capital. Thedifferent
conceptstypes of social capital
and meaning of these
are discussed
different typesin of
detail in the
social following
capital sectionsin detail in the following sections
are discussed
AAreview
reviewofofthe thetitle
titleand
andabstract
abstractofofthe theselected
selectedpapers
paperswas wasconducted.
conducted.From Fromthisthis
process,
process,it itwaswas evident
evident thatthatprevious
previous research
researchcould in fact
could be classified
in fact intointo
be classified two two
categories:
catego-
(i)ries:
research focusing
(i) research on the positive
focusing effects ofeffects
on the positive social capital
of social oncapital
neighbourhood renewal and
on neighbourhood re-
(ii) research
newal on the
and (ii) negative
research on the effects of social
negative capital
effects on neighbourhood
of social renewal. This
capital on neighbourhood was
renewal.
incorporated in the research
This was incorporated in theframework particularly
research framework for examining
particularly associations
for examining between
associations
social capital and neighbourhood
between social capital and neighbourhood renewal. renewal.
The
Theresearch
researchframework
frameworkisisillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure1.1.
Question 2:
Question 1: Question 3:
How can neighbourhood renewal be
How can social capital be defined How to assess whether the level of social
effectively managed from the
in neighbourhood renewal? capital in neighbourhood renewal is optimal?
perspective of social capital?
Formulation (2.2) Concept (2.1) Association (2.3)
Trust (2.2.1)
 The trust between communities and Structure Dimension

local authorities or service agencies 
Bonding social capital
 The trust among the residents should

Bridging social capital
be covered in analysing the social
capital generating 
Linking social capital
The association between social capital
and neighbourhood renewal (2.3)
Norms (2.2.2) Relational Dimension

The positive association (2.3.1)

The norm of participation 
Friendliness

The negative association (2.3.2)

The norm of autonomy 
Helpfulness

The norm of social order 
Respect for privacy

The norm of social citizenship
Cognitive Dimension
Social Structure (2.2.3) 

Request for interest
 The macro-social level (Community

income structure, Distribution of
different types of actors, Age
distribution)

The micro-social level
Figure1.1.Research
Figure Researchframework
frameworkfor
foranalysing
analysing social
social capital
capital in
in neighbourhood
renewal. [Note:
[Note:The
The
number in parentheses represents the section number corresponding to the content.]
number in parentheses represents the section number corresponding to the content.].
Withthe
With theresearch
researchframework
frameworkdeveloped,
developed,the thenext
nextstep
stepwas
wastotocarry
carryoutoutreference
reference
clustering which aided in getting a clear insight into the relevant research
clustering which aided in getting a clear insight into the relevant research done on done onthe
the
topic. This
topic. This was
was done
done by
by classifying
classifyingthethefocus
focusofofeach
eachofofthe selected
the papers
selected papers across thethe
across cat-
egories within
categories withinour
ourresearch
researchframework
framework (as (as shown
shown in in Appendix
Appendix A). A). The
Themain
mainfindings
findings
drawnfrom
drawn fromeach
eachpaper
paperareareshown
shownininAppendix
AppendixB.B.From Fromthisthisexercise,
exercise,ititwas
wasseen
seenthat
that
previous research preferred to analyse bonding, bridging social capital, and
previous research preferred to analyse bonding, bridging social capital, and linking social linking social
capital, whereas most research focused on the role of trust, social norm, and social structure
in the formulation of individual social capital. In the following sections, we focus on
explaining why this phenomenon occurs.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 5 of 27
3. Critical Review
3.1. The Concept of Social Capital in the Context of Neighbour Renewal
In order to understand and define the concept of social capital in the context of
neighbour renewal, the first step was to examine how previous research has explained this
concept (as shown in Appendix B). Generally, it was seen that the definition of social capital
in neighbourhood renewal was derived from social capital theory. Moreover, in examining
existing definitions, two conflicting arguments could be clearly identified.
The first argument stemmed from the differences between structuralism and function-
alism. From the perspective of structuralism, several scholars have defined social capital as
the outcomes generated from social networks [23–26]. Within this argument, social capital
was considered to be significantly associated with interactions among group members,
whether they were from homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. This notion comes from
the definition by scholars who have drawn from the social capital theory. Bourdieu was
the first to define social capital from the perspective of networks [27]. Bourdieu suggested
that social capital is related to the durability of the network and institutionalised relation-
ships. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, scholars tend to define social capital in
terms of the frequency of interactions between residents and other social organisations
or enterprises, or in the case of community participation, the level of communication be-
tween residents and government [28]. Therefore, many scholars define social capital in
neighbourhood renewal drawing from Putnam [29], who classified it as bonding social
capital (relationships among homogeneous groups), bridging social capital (relationships
among heterogeneous groups) and linking social capital (relationships between different
power classes). From the perspective of functionalism, scholars have described social
capital based on its function [30–34]. This also comes from the definition proposed by
scholars using social capital theory. Social capital was first defined from the perspective of
its function by Coleman [35]. Coleman suggested that social capital can facilitate certain
actions of group members. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, social capital is
always seen as the sum of trust, reciprocity, and social norm among residents to facilitate
cooperation and coordination in the community. Moreover, it can also be clearly seen that
structuralism focuses on whether there is a relationship, and if there is, what are the types
of relationships that are present. Conversely, functionalism focuses on the characteristics of
relationships. These conflicting views have led to a rather odd phenomenon, where, on the
one hand, studies that have defined social capital through structuralism consider it to be
the relationships and interaction between residents and other organisations while using
bonding, bridging, and linking to classify social capital. On the other hand, others from the
perspective of functionalism have used trust and the degree of reciprocity to measure the
level of social capital.
The second conflicting argument about the concept comes from the differences in
views regarding social capital being an asset either at the individual level or at the collective
level. This debate has existed in social capital theory literature for a long time. Liu, et al.
suggested that sociologists prefer to describe social capital as an individual asset that is
influenced by one’s own position, whereas political scientists prefer to define social capital
as a collective property of communities [36]. This conflict is still unresolved but is now
moving in another direction—a growing number of scholars believe that social capital
exists at both individual and collective levels.
To explore these two conflicting views, this study adopted the propositions of Es-
peranza et al. and Esser [21,22]. Specifically, this study classified social capital into three
categories, as described in Section 2: structural social capital, relational social capital, and
cognitive social capital. Structural social capital (which is represented in Figure 2 by lines be-
tween the nodes) refers to the various relationship networks that facilitate actions between
individuals and organisations [37]. Structural social capital includes: (i) bonding social
capital, which refers to relationships within a homogeneous group (which is represented
in Figure 2 by lines within the same colour block, and blocks of the same colour represent
homogeneous groups); (ii) bridging social capital, which refers to relationships between
tween nodes) refers to the attachment strength among members of a social network [37].
The cognitive social capital (which is represented in Figure 2 as the same cluster of nodes)
refers to social systems in which resources lead to commonly shared goals [37].
There are two reasons for designing the conceptual framework in this way. First,
structural social capital contains bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, which will
Land 2022, 11, 1202 6 of 27
satisfy the need of the perspective of structuralism. Meanwhile, relational social capital
contains trust and reciprocity at the individual level, which will satisfy the need of provid-
ing the functionalism perspective. In addition, during neighbourhood renewal, two
heterogeneous
strangers may group (which is represented
build relationships because ofin common
Figure 2 by lines between
interests. different
Cognitive social colour
capital
blocks); and (iii)
can be used linking social
to describe capital,
this type which
of social refers Second,
capital. to relationships betweenframework
this conceptual different levels
only
of power (which is represented in Figure 2 by lines between different levels). The
focuses on the individual level and does not refer to the collective level. This conceptual relational
social capitalis(which
framework is represented
established based on in theFigure 2 as the
definition thickness of linessocial
of individual-level between nodes)
capital pro-
refers to the attachment strength among members of a social network [37].
posed by Esser [21], which helps this framework provide better clarity regarding the de- The cognitive
social capital
bate on social(which
capitalisbeing
represented in Figure
individual 2 as the [21].
or collective sameThe
cluster of nodes) refers
collective-level to capital
social social
systems in which
is discussed in theresources lead to commonly shared goals [37].
next section.
High power level
Low power level
Line Structural social capital
Thickness of the lines Relational social capital
Arrow line
Cognitive social capital
Homogeneous group
Figure2.2.The
Figure Theconceptual
conceptualframework
frameworkof
ofsocial
socialcapital.
capital.
In the are
There context
two of neighbourhood
reasons renewal,
for designing the attributes
the conceptual of the types
framework of social
in this way. capital
First,
(presentedsocial
structural in Figure 2) have
capital been bonding,
contains redefined bridging,
and discussed
and as follows:
linking social capital, which
will
(i) satisfy the needdimension
The structural of the perspective of structuralism.
usually stresses Meanwhile,provided
the control advantages relationalboth
social
by
capital contains trust and reciprocity at the individual level, which will satisfy
the value of the information and the structural location of the social network [38]. the need of
providing the functionalism
Structural social capital,perspective. In addition,
which includes bonding,during neighbourhood
bridging, and linking renewal, two
social capital,
strangers may build relationships because of common interests. Cognitive
is characterised as playing an essential role in community engagement and social capital
can be used to describe this type of social capital. Second, this conceptual framework only
focuses on the individual level and does not refer to the collective level. This conceptual
framework is established based on the definition of individual-level social capital proposed
by Esser [21], which helps this framework provide better clarity regarding the debate
on social capital being individual or collective [21]. The collective-level social capital is
discussed in the next section.
In the context of neighbourhood renewal, the attributes of the types of social capital
(presented in Figure 2) have been redefined and discussed as follows:
(i) The structural dimension usually stresses the control advantages provided both by
the value of the information and the structural location of the social network [38].
Structural social capital, which includes bonding, bridging, and linking social capital,
is characterised as playing an essential role in community engagement and collabo-
ration. The imbalance of structural social capital among different stakeholders may
negatively impact stakeholder collaboration and become a barrier to community
participation [7,39].
(ii) Relational social capital focuses on informal social ties with stakeholders and the
strength of relationships [40]. Among different types of informal social ties, the
Land 2022, 11, 1202 7 of 27
strength of neighbourhood ties plays an important role during the process of neigh-
bourhood renewal. However, it should be noted that the neighbourhood tie is a
unique type of relationship, which is reserved for those living in close proximity and
is different from friendship as usually understood. We do not know if our neighbours
are like us (or unlike us) and how they feel about us, but as they live close to us, it
requires us to pay attention to our relationship with them [41,42]. However, there
are very few studies that have noted the unique characteristics of neighbourhood
ties. Souza proposed that future studies on neighbourhood ties should focus on their
unique characteristics such as helpfulness, friendliness, and privacy respect [40].
(iii) Cognitive social capital may incline individuals to take mutually beneficial collective
action [43]. Within the context of neighbourhood renewal, considering the variety of
interests and of people living in an area, we cannot expect a common understanding
to emerge in the process of community engagement. At least, there may initially be
differences of opinion and conflicts [7]. Focusing on this issue, the communicative
planning theory is used to highlight the consensus building in community planning
decisions [44]. Several cities have used this approach to promote related policies.
For example, Chicago’s South Side Planning Board (SSPB) focuses on the notion
of ‘consensus’ and the development of a climate in which means are available for
individuals to ‘act together in concert for a common goal’ [45]. Thus, the cognitive
social capital has an important effect in neighbourhood renewal and may even affect
the structural and relational social capital [46].
The debate on the concept and classification of social capital has been going on for
a long time. The representative debate is whether reciprocity and special trust towards
someone should be part of social capital. This study proposes that this debate stems
from different perspectives on social capital: structuralism and functionalism. This study
attempts to propose a conceptual framework of social capital in neighbourhood renewal by
integrating two perspectives.
3.2. Formulation of Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal

As mentioned above, the formulation of social capital in neighbourhood renewal
includes three basic components: trust, norms, and social structure.
Firstly, trust among residents in neighbourhood renewal mainly refers to generalised
trust. According to Arrow, it is beneficial for individuals to have some trust in each other’s
words [47]. It is thus vital to understand the particular role of trust in the context of
neighbourhood renewal. Different kinds of trust have been studied by previous research,
such as generalised social trust (i.e., trust towards your neighbourhood or unknown people),
trust in public services, and knowledge-based trust [48]. In the context of neighbourhood
renewal, trust can be divided into two categories: trust between communities and local
authorities or service agencies, and trust among the residents.
In regard to trust between communities and service agencies or local authorities, pre-
vious studies have mainly focused on the effects of trust on community engagement [49]. A
plethora of studies have found that residents’ well-being and their willingness to participate
in community affairs are associated with government trustworthiness [50]. Establishing
trust between communities and government is important for local authorities and ser-
vice agencies to gain support and work with communities in the neighbourhood renewal
process [51]. Past experiences in the communities [52,53] and a lack of information and
transparency [54] may be the sources of mistrust.
In regard to trust among residents, almost all related research has committed to the
view that trust is a way to realise community solidarity [55,56]. Previous studies have
proven that trust is associated with several elements, i.e., social cooperation [57], social
cohesion [58], and interconnection within communities [31].
In summary, the trust between communities and local authorities or service agencies,
and the trust among the residents should be covered when analysing social capital generation.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 8 of 27
Secondly, norms among residents in neighbourhood renewal refer to the level of

obligation, democratic orientation, and tolerance that will guide someone’s behaviour [59].
Normally, participating in groups and networks may lead members to copy attitudes and
behaviour because of social norms [60]. This confirms the conclusions of previous research
that highlight that ‘social capital and social norms are positively correlated’ [61]. In the
context of social norms, a neighbourhood can be defined as an entity sharing common
norms [54,62]. According to Mathers, the concept of neighbourhood as an aggregation of
residents with similar norms, values, and customs has been challenged by neighbourhood
renewal [53]. Neighbourhood renewal efforts involve diverse and complex combinations of
different scales of stakeholders, social norms, processes, and programs [63]. Thus, it is vital
to understand social norms in order to deal with unnecessary costs and ensure community
acceptance in the process before neighbourhood renewal [64].
It should be noted that research on social capital in neighbourhood renewal often
tends to ignore the important role of norms. The statements about norms in neighbourhood
renewal derived from the few previous studies could be summarised in two aspects. On
the one hand, social norms in neighbourhoods could improve resident interaction and
improve social organisation [24]. On the other hand, social norms are regarded as the
reason for social cohesion and of the confinements on freedom of residents [32,65], which
may hinder the renewal process. These findings are far from adequate to analyse social
norms in neighbourhood renewal. According to Dalton and Sonja, four dimensions of
social norms should be considered in the future: the norm of participation, the norm of
autonomy, the norm of social order, and the norm of social citizenship [66,67].
Thirdly, for social structure, Coleman proposed that it can facilitate certain forms of
social capital [35]. Social structure is seen as the source of obligations and expectations of
reciprocation [68]. Social structure is normally divided into the macro- and micro-social
levels [69].
The macro-social level can be described in terms of income inequality, residential
mobility, concentrated poverty, and formal institutional structure [70]. In the context
of neighbourhood renewal, the composition of the community actors is complex, and
renewal activities inevitably bring about changes in the structure of the residents [71].
Previous research has mostly focused on three aspects: (i) community income structure, (ii)
distribution of different types of actors, and (iii) age distribution.
(i) Community income structure.
The social network normally has greater effects on the poor [72]. Warren and Saegert
stated that the lack of other valuable resources makes the poor more likely to rely on social
capital [73].
(ii) Distribution of different types of actors.
Neighbourhood renewal normally brings new residents and other stakeholders into
the neighbourhood. The participation of these new actors leads to the incorporation
of individuals into recognisable institutional structures [74]. That means neighbourhood
renewal will develop a new form of social capital in the old neighbourhood by transforming
the distribution of various types of stakeholders in the neighbourhood [24].
(iii) Age distribution.
Most old people do hope to be ‘aging in place’, which means being able to live in
their own homes and communities safely, independently, and comfortably, no matter
one’s age, income, or level of ability [75]. The older residents devote more time to their
communities than younger workforce residents, which means they may have more impact
on the formulation of social capital [76].
The micro-social level reflects the social network within the individual, mediating
macro-level influences [69]. The field of environmental psychology generally analyses
the micro-social level impact [77]. Research on the micro-level has mostly focused on the
mechanisms and causal pathways through which social capital, physical environment,
Land 2022, 11, 1202 9 of 27
place attachment, and informal ties may be related [78,79]. In the community, micro-level
social structures promote group identity, mutual understanding, and interactions [24,80,81].
This study views collective-level social capital (trust, norms, and social structure)
as formative elements of residents’ individual social capital. Although these elements
have been discussed many times in previous studies in the field of social capital, the
boundaries for trust, norms, and social structure are still blurred. What should the actors
of trust include? Do social norms include only reciprocity? What should be included in
the social structure? These questions are still not well answered. Based on this, this study
systematically developed a system of social capital formation elements in the context of
3.3. The Association between Social Capital and Neighbourhood Renewal

Confusion regarding the association between neighbourhood renewal and social
capital comes from the conflicting views that identify the relationship as either positive or
negative. Both the views are discussed next.
3.3.1. The Positive Association

According to Shen et al., the profiteering of real estate and land financing is in the
process of losing its financial foundation [82]. As the marginal value of land declines,
the logic of neighbourhood renewal projects has shifted from economic development to
community construction [19,82]. Therefore, social capital can be defined as the driving
force of neighbourhood renewal [82]. Normally, social capital promotes neighbourhood
renewal in two ways: consensus building and improving efficiency.
(i) Consensus building
According to Innes, local community planning requires building consensus through
the cooperation of multiple stakeholders [44]. Swyngedouw notes that urban governance
has been depoliticised, moving away from implementing outcomes that represent demo-
cratic decision-making to building consensus among multiple public and private stake-
holders [83]. High social capital can contribute to a stakeholder’s sense of shared group
membership with another person, which may motivate all parties to insist on an agreement
and coordinate their behaviour on the issue at hand [84]. Previous research has found
that high social capital can help deal with difficult problems during the renewal process,
such as social exclusion, complex, intertwined ownership, and other socio-economic is-
sues [85]. These problems are mostly generated by the lack of novel cooperation processes
and harmonious relationships.
(ii) Enhancing project efficiency
Social capital generated in the historical context creates a sense of commitment, at-
tachment to localities, and trust that facilitates the adoption of laws and regulations for
management, which may improve the process of decision-making in neighbourhood re-
newal projects more effectively [55]. Previous research has found that it is vital for local
politicians and officials to understand community norms to deal with unnecessary costs [64].
Moreover, if residents can develop a sense of trust in public institutions, local governments
will work with communities more easily than before [86]. Furthermore, a renewal project
with high social capital may help to cope with difficulties, whereas a project with low social
capital will not cope well [87]. Trust in the community can also facilitate collaboration and
residents’ well-being [58,88]. The higher the level of social capital, the more prosperous
social cooperation and more effective public policies [57].
3.3.2. The Negative Association

The effect of social resources can be used for good and for bad, which means that
social capital may have negative effects [89]. Portes suggests that the negative side of
social capital includes four aspects: (i) social exclusion, (ii) overclaims on homogeneous
members, (iii) constraints on personal freedom, and (iv) lower and lower social norms [90].
Land 2022, 11, 1202 10 of 27
Therefore, several studies concerned the negative relationship effect of social capital on
renewal projects. On the one hand, neighbourhood renewal approaches that emphasise
economic growth and physical restructuring in the age of globalisation often result in the
deconstruction of well-established community networks [24,53]. For renewal projects, new
social structures can be unstable, where residents begin to lose trust in their government
and community identity can be lost, which may hinder the renewal projects [91]. On the
other hand, some research has shown that high social capital can prolong the decision-
making process of renewal projects [11]. This is because of conflicts among stakeholders.
Lelieveldt found that residents who were active in neighbourhood redevelopment work
disliked fellow residents to a greater extent than those who were not [59]. Renzaho, et al.
proposed that the more people residents know in the community and the more involved
they are in the lives of others, the more likely they are to engage with other residents’
attitudes toward the neighbourhood, which negatively affect their opinions about daily
life in the neighbourhood [13]. Ozan found a negative association between the resisting of
renewal actives and the network relationships outside the projects [92]. Whether the effect
of social capital on neighbourhood renewal is negative or not has been strongly debated,
and yet, no consensus has been drawn.
Previous research is gradually realizing that higher social capital is not always better.
The dark side of social capital is gradually getting the attention of researchers. However, it
also raises questions about how to measure social capital and how to assess the level of
social capital. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on this question. As a review study,
this study compiles research on the light and dark sides of social capital in neighbourhood
renewal to provide insights for future research.
4. Conclusions and Avenues for Future Research

Neighbourhood renewal is more than a physical transformation of neighbourhood
space; rather, it is also a reestablishment of social networks, which involves multiple stake-
holders and various types of relationships [93]. This paper reviewed existing studies on
social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Additionally, this paper examined and discussed
the formulation and concept of social capital in the context of neighbourhood renewal
and analysed the association between neighbourhood renewal and social capital. The
comprehensive review provided an analysis framework of social capital in neighbourhood
renewal. The proposed framework is an invaluable effort in forming a better conceptual
and practical understanding of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. The theoretical,
managerial implication and future research is as follows:
The concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal is complex. Scholars have
debated the concept of social capital for several decades and yet they have not shared a
unified view about the assessment framework for social capital. Based on the analysis
presented in the previous sections, we draw a basic analysis framework for neighbourhood
renewal. Specifically, due to the special role of residents in neighbourhood renewal, this
study analyses social capital from the perspective of residents. As for the classification of
social capital, this study has attempted to clarify what social capital means in the neigh-
bourhood renewal context. Several studies have identified social cohesion, characteristics
of social networks, or trust among stakeholders as the main components that form social
capital. However, this study has found that previous research has often misused the con-
cept of social capital at the collective asset level and the individual asset level, and the
perspective of functionalism and structuralism. Therefore, based on social capital theory,
this study proposes that social capital in neighbourhood renewal should be classified into
three categories: structural dimension, relational dimension, and cognitive dimension. The
collective asset level is seen as the formulation of elements of social capital, such as trust,
norms, and social structures.
This study has proposed that individual social capital in neighbourhood renewal
is formed by trust, social norms, and social structure in the community. Specifically,
the formulation of social capital is proven to be formed based on the historical context
Land 2022, 11, 1202 11 of 27
of neighbourhoods. Several studies have found that the social capital of residents is
heavily influenced by past experiences [52,53]. The historical context of neighbourhoods,
combined with low rents and low housing prices, has led to a concentration of vulnerable
groups in specific neighbourhoods that are defined by low-income households and weak
social networks. Therefore, a study of social capital in neighbourhood renewal cannot
be done without paying attention to the wider historically specific context. In addition,
formative factors should be considered as antecedents of an individual’s social capital in
neighbourhood renewal. Therefore, when measuring formation factors such as trust, social
norms, and social structure, their measurement factors should be considered before the old
neighbourhood renewal project. In other words, the formation factor is the collective level
of social capital in the historical context of the neighbourhood rather than social capital
triggered by the renewal project.
The view that ‘the higher the social capital, the better it is’ is not necessarily true
for older neighbourhood renewal projects. Based on previous research on the association
between social capital and renewal projects, this study found that with high social capital,
individuals may benefit from mutual cooperation and help within an array of social
networks [94]. However, the higher-than-average level of social capital of residents in
neighbourhoods may hinder the implementation of the renewal project. According to Bull
and Jones, higher social capital does not always lead to more transparency and democracy
in the process of renewal projects and on the contrary, the past political history and pre-
existing social networks play an important role [95]. As Powell and Simith argued, the
ties that bind may also turn into the ties that blind [96]. Previous studies have found that
when actors are overly reliant on their group members, they may try to achieve harmony
within the organisation by excluding of members with different opinions [15]. Therefore,
the action and interest of individuals may be reined in and beliefs, along with order, are
imparted to organisation members, which may contribute to a wrong social structure [97].
According to Gabbay and Leenders, overinvestment in social capital in a wrong social
structure can result in negative returns [98]. Furthermore, a high level of social capital is
often related to social exclusion. A close-knit organisation will try to exclude outsiders.
This may explain why sometimes government officials and corporations cannot find a
suitable way to communicate with residents and why several scholars argue that the project
manager should obtain trust from residents first before project implementation [99]. This
could also explain why residents are often excluded in the traditional elite decision-making
model. The high level of average social capital among homogeneous groups may lead
them to protect their self-interests [100]. McLean argued that there is a potential for social
capital to exclude people from heterogeneous groups [101]. This means that instead of
always aiming for high social capital, we should seek to achieve a more modest level of
social capital in neighbourhood renewal projects.
Neighbourhood renewal has become normalised in urban redevelopment. Thus, social
capital in neighbourhood renewal has also become an important issue of urban manage-
ment. This paper advocates establishing a framework of social capital in neighbourhood
renewal and proposes four research directions.
• Future research should comprehensively analyse various kinds of social capital in
neighbourhood renewal. The existing studies have generally been selective and have
focused on a single or some selected elements to analyse social capital because they
lack a unified analysis framework. The research of multiple elements and levels of
social capital may help to comprehensively understand the conflicts and collaboration
during the process of neighbourhood renewal.
• Future research should analyse the association between social capital components and
their formulation and the performance of neighbourhood renewal. There is a need for
potential insights to be tested against their causality.
• Future research should investigate empirically the contextual factors on social capital
in neighbourhood renewal. The shape of neighbourhoods varies from country to
country and region to region. Accordingly, the formulation and impacts of social
Land 2022, 11, 1202 12 of 27
capital may have different characteristics. Therefore, further research should try to
find more potential contextual factors (e.g., local conditions, degree of autonomy).
• Future research should analyse social capital in neighbourhood renewal as a dynamic
process. Although many existing studies have concentrated on the association between
renewal project performance and levels of social capital, they have overlooked the
dynamic nature of social capital. The changes in individual social relationships,
interaction, and trust lead to changes in social capital. There is still a lack of research
on the dynamics of social capital and its impact. Therefore, it is necessary to explore
the evolution of social capital of various actors in the renewal process, including
government-enterprise cooperation, community participation, and so forth, to expedite
the completion of neighbourhood renewal.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.H. and G.L.; Data curation, R.H. and X.F.; Funding
acquisition, K.L. and G.L.; Methodology, R.H.; Resources, R.H. and X.F.; Supervision, G.L. and A.S.;
Writing—original draft, R.H.; Writing—review and editing, K.L. and A.S. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to thank all the participants. The completion of this work would not
be possible without their cooperation. This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation
of Chongqing [grant number: CSTC2021JCYJ-MSXMX1064], the Natural Science Foundation of
Chongqing [grant number: CSTC2021YCJH-BGZXM0353], the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities [grant number: 2019CDJSK03PY07], the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities [grant number: 2019CDJSK03XK14].
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 13 of 27
Appendix A
Table A1. Reference cluster.
Concept
Formulation
References Structural Social Capital Relational Cognitive Association
Bonding Bridging Linking Social Capital Social Capital Trust Norm Social Structure
1 Shin (2022) [30] x x x x x
2 Jia et al. (2021) [81] x x
3 Nakano et al. (2021) [102] x x x x x
4 Natalia et al. (2021) [31] x x x x
5 Zewdie et al. (2021) [64] x x
6 Liu et al. (2021) [103] x x x x x
7 Pourzakarya et al. (2021) [104] x x
8 Shen et al. (2021) [82] x
9 Hong et al. (2021) [88] x x x x
10 Eoin et al. (2020) [105] x x
11 Dejan et al. (2021) [106] x
12 May et al. (2021) [107] x x x x x
13 Xiao, et al. (2020) [108] x x x x x
14 Du et al. (2020) [32] x x x x
15 Kim et al. (2020) [109] x x
16 Gabriela et al. (2020) [110] x
17 Alenka et al. (2020) [60] x
18 Li et al. (2020) [111] x x x
19 Tong et al. (2020) [112] x x x
20 Aguda et al. (2020) [113] x x x
21 Lima et al. (2020) [114] x x
22 Izadi et al. (2020) [55] x
23 Jackson (2019) [52] x x x
24 Chen et al. (2019) [85] x x
25 Kim et al. (2019) [115] x x x x
26 Greene et al. (2019) [116] x
27 Kim et al. (2019) [33] x
28 Guo et al. (2018) [117] x x
29 Ryu et al. (2018) [34] x x x
30 Kim (2018) [72] x x x x x x
31 Versey et al. (2018) [118] x x x x
Land 2022, 11, 1202 14 of 27
Table A1. Cont.
Concept
Formulation
32 Ferilli et al. (2017) [119] x x x x
33 Kramer et al. (2017) [56] x x x
34 Alistair et al. (2017) [120]
35 Cho et al. (2016) [75] x x x
36 Hindhede (2016) [65] x x x x x x x
37 Fenster et al. (2016) [121] x x x x
38 Gent et al. (2016) [122] x x
39 Filip et al. (2018) [123] x
40 Stephen et al. (2016) [98] x x x
41 Phillips (2016) [124] x x x x x x
42 Jung et al. (2015) [39] x x
43 Hiroshi et al. (2015) [125] x x x x
44 Muir (2011) [126] x x x x x x
45 Doris et al. (2014) [23] x x x x
46 Hamdan et al. (2014) [127] x x x x x x
47 Marc et al. (2014) [128] x x x x x x
48 Fuller et al. (2013) [129] x x
49 Zhai, et al. (2013) [24] x x x x
50 Rich et al. (2013) [130] x x x x
51 Jalaudin et al. (2012) [131] x x x
52 Blessi et al. (2012) [91] x x x
53 Bertotti et al. (2011) [132] x x x x
54 Prior et al. (2012) [25] x x
55 Arbaci et al. (2012) [133] x
56 Degen et al. (2012) [134] x x x
57 Renzaho et al. (2012) [13] x
58 Aitken et al. (2012) [49] x x
59 Turcu (2012) [50] x x x x
60 Bailey (2012) [135] x x x x x
61 Cheung (2012) [136] x x
62 Parés et al. (2012) [57] x x x x x
63 Musso et al. (2011) [137] x x x
64 Zmerli (2010) [67] x x x
65 Ha (2010) [138] x x x
Land 2022, 11, 1202 15 of 27
Table A1. Cont.
Concept
Formulation
66 Turk et al. (2010) [139] x x x
67 Sasaki (2010) [140] x x x
68 Fallov (2010) [141] x x x
69 Cornelius et al. (2010) [142] x x
70 Blakeley, et al. (2009) [143] x x
71 Atrhurson (2009) [144] x
72 Gilbert (2009) [145] x
73 Kleinhans (2009) [146] x x x x x
74 Rosenthal (2008) [147] x x x
75 Greenbaum (2008) [148] x x
76 Rogers et al. (2008) [149] x x x x x x
77 Semenza et al. (2006) [18] x x x
78 Kleinhans et al. (2007) [150] x x x x x x x
79 Crawford (2006) [151] x x x x x x x x x
80 Bull et al. (2006) [95] x x x x x x x
81 Hemphill et al. (2006) [152] x x x x
82 Lelieveldt (2004) [59] x x x x x
83 Hibbitt et al. (2001) [68] x x x
84 Butler et al. (2001) [26] x x x
Land 2022, 11, 1202 16 of 27
Appendix B
Table A2. Reviewed studies on social capital in neighbourhood renewal.
References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

1 Shin (2022) [30] Social network analysis (SNA) (1) The lack of bridging social capital in the process of a renewal project often leads to residents being isolated.
(1) Trust is positively associated with cooperatives and organisational performance.
2 Jia et al. (2021) [81] Quantitative (2) Informal sociability is conducive to imitation behaviour.
(3) Local top-down networks are negatively related to the formation of cooperatives.
3 Nakano et al. (2021) [102] Quantitative (1) Residents who prefer using advanced technology have higher social capital than those who do not.
4 Natalia et al. (2021) [31] Quantitative (1) People with a better socio-economic position have better indicators of social capital.
(1) The renewal project may destroy long-established communities, disrupt their social setup, and reduce
5 Zewdie et al. (2021) [64] Quantitative
resident groups’ social capital.
(1) High-quality social capital will have a greater impact on improving life.
6 Liu et al. (2021) [103] Quantitative
(2) Social capital has an important influence on households’ behaviour regarding livelihood choices.
7 Pourzakarya et al. (2021) [104] Qualitative (1) Improving trust and awareness can facilitate resident participation in the renewal process.
(1) Social capital can provide urban renewal with a sustainable driving force by both increasing income and
8 Shen et al. (2021) [82] Qualitative
reducing cost.
(1) A high degree of social capital significantly raises residents’ subjective well-being but the effects are
9 Hong et al. (2021) [88] Quantitative
localised.
(1) Sports can play a vital role in the process of developing a strong community identity and social capital
10 Eoin et al. (2020) [105] Qualitative
during neighbourhood renewal.
(1) The relationship between policymakers, local communities, and cultural producers can be seen as the
11 Dejan et al. (2021) [106] Qualitative
main driver of renewal projects.
12 May et al. (2021) [107] Qualitative (1) Linking social capital can be classified into informal and formal, linking social capital in the community.
(1) Mixed neighbourhoods would improve residents’—especially low-income residents’—access to social
13 Xiao et al. (2020) [108] Structural equation modelling (SEM)
capital and life chances.
(1) The dynamics of social capital are positively correlated with residential satisfaction.
(2) Social connectedness, neighbourhood attachment, reciprocity, social trust, eviction and gentrification,
14 Du et al. (2020) [32] SEM
community participation, and efficacy and cohesion are highly indicative of social capital in neighbourhoods
amid urban renewal.
(1) Local governments should encourage community involvement groups, neighbourhood coordinators, and
15 Kim et al. (2020) [109] Qualitative
civic leaders to support community engagement efforts.
(1) The social process of the emergence and institutionalization of innovations in spatial planning can be
16 Gabriela et al. (2020) [110] Qualitative
classified into incubating, generating, formatting, stabilizing, and adjusting.
(1) The urban renewal project manager should integrate multiple disciplines in a human-centred approach to
17 Alenka et al. (2020) [60] Qualitative
balance social, economic, and environmental pillars.
(1) To avoid social conflicts, local governments should play a vital role in communicating, educating,
18 Li et al. (2020) [111] Qualitative
consulting, and collaborating with residents, rather than just informing about finalised decisions.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 17 of 27
Table A2. Cont.

(1) Migrants who choose to live in urban villages are more likely to establish social relationships, norms, and
19 Tong et al. (2020) [112] Quantitative relationships of trust.
(2) Social capital in urban renewal is proven to become a new aspect of migrant housing needs.
20 Aguda et al. (2020) [113] Quantitative (1) Young adult homeownership decisions are significantly affected by social capital.
(1) Neighbourhood shrinkage can lead to a stronger desire for community cohesion and for the spaces that
21 Lima et al. (2020) [114] Qualitative
might reinforce social interaction
(1) The function of social capital in social sustainability is adaptation and adjustment in urban renewal
22 Izadi et al. (2020) [55] Theoretical projects.
(2) The components of social capital include cooperation, trust, participation, and sense of belonging.
(1) This study proves the difference in social capital between middle- to upper-class black residents and
23 Jackson (2019) [52] Qualitative lower-class black residents: middle- to upper-class black residents focus on outsmarting the city’s power
structure; the lower-class focusses on neighbourhood actions.
(1) Participative renewal is necessary for the so-called ‘top-down’ planning context.
24 Chen et al. (2019) [85] Qualitative (2) The active support that institutional innovation in urban planning and governance is important to make
room for community participation.
(1) Frequent meetings appear to open more opportunities to share information and opinions.
25 Kim et al. (2019) [115] SNA (2) The participation of high-performing coordinators who contribute to better communication and trust
could improve the efficiency of the entire network.
26 Greene et al. (2019) [116] Quantitative (1) Renewal projects may help to reduce neighbourhood disorder.
27 Kim et al. (2019) [33] Quantitative (1) Social capital is significantly associated with resident relocation intention.
(1) Resident expectations of old neighbourhoods are positively associated with resident intentions of
28 Guo et al. (2018) [117] SEM
community participation behaviour.
(1) Increasing social capital could lead to benefits for the public good.
29 Ryu et al. (2018) [34] SEM (2) Participatory planning can improve resident social capital but is not significantly associated with resident
participation behaviour.
(1) Bonding, bridging, and linking social capital are all significantly associated with collective behaviour.
30 Kim (2018) [72] Hierarchical nonlinear models (2) Social trust has an independent and positive effect on collective behaviour.
(3) The effects of social capital on collective action are moderated by individual socioeconomic status.
31 Versey et al. (2018) [118] Qualitative (1) Social capital is now dissipating in neighbourhoods.
(1) Social cohesion and community participation can lead to a successful renewal project.
32 Ferilli et al. (2017) [119] Qualitative
(2) Bridging social capital can help intercultural dialogue.
(1) High levels of social capital may indeed provide social support (especially emotional support) and social
33 Kramer et al. (2017) [56] Qualitative
interaction.
34 Alistair et al. (2017) [120] Qualitative (1) Community-based organisations can be attracted by partnership building.
(1) Neighbourhood social capital is positively associated with community participation, conflict resolution,
35 Cho et al. (2016) [75] Qualitative
and social interests interlocked during neighbourhood renewal.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 18 of 27
Table A2. Cont.

(1) The lack of bridging social capital hampers the information exchange and the flow of material resources.
36 Hindhede (2016) [65] Qualitative/SNA (2) Social relationships created within particular communities during neighbourhood renewal may isolate or
possibly even harm other groups, such as non-participant groups.
(1) Social capital can be used to evaluate resident civic capacity development.
37 Fenster et al. (2016) [121] Qualitative (2) Women residents make more efforts to develop informal social relationships and formal leadership
activities in the process of community building.
38 Gent et al. (2016) [122] GIS analysis (1) There are differences in perceptions of neighbourhood boundaries.
(1) This study developed an evaluation approach based on three dimensions: sustainability vision, formal,
39 Filip et al. (2018) [123] SNA/Fuzzy Logic
and informal network influence dimension.
(1) Without deep community engagement, residents may not understand or trust the process and show
40 Stephen et al. (2016) [98] Qualitative
resistance behaviour.
(1) Social capital involves both embodied and emotional capital and the form of social capital contains
41 Phillips (2016) [124] Quantitative
technical, institutionalised, and objectified forms.
(1) The government should consider the role of voluntary and community-led organisations during the
42 Jung et al. (2015) [39] Quantitative
renewal project.
(1) Neighbourhood-level bonding social capital is associated with a depressive mood in both genders and
neighbourhood-level bridging social capital is associated with a depressive mood among women.
43 Hiroshi et al. (2015) [125] Quantitative
(2) In the neighbourhood with stronger bonding social capital, there would be dense networks among people
with similar social backgrounds.
(1) High levels of linking social capital do not necessarily translate into participation in community
44 Muir (2011) [126] Qualitative
engagement.
45 Doris et al. (2014) [23] Quantitative (1) Building up social capital is a prerequisite for a sustainable village renewal process.
(1) People are closest to family members, followed by friends, colleagues, and neighbours.
46 Hamdan et al. (2014) [127] Quantitative (2) Trust can be seen as a bridge to link individuals together.
(3) Trust is significantly associated with the level of belonging in a neighbourhood.
(1) Historical reasons in a neighbourhood may generate bridging social capital during the community
47 Marc et al. (2014) [128] Qualitative participation process in neighbourhood renewal.
(2) Linking social capital is predominant in neighbourhoods, which is related to power relationships.
(1) The development of trust and reciprocity can help to generate interpersonal and institutional ties, which is
necessary for enhancing the life chances of local people.
48 Fuller et al. (2013) [129] Qualitative
(2) Linking social capital building depends on a dynamic and cooperative relationship to assemble the range
of resources to overcome problems.
(1) Local representatives elected by the community members themselves can effectively facilitate the
community’s involvement in the renewal process.
49 Zhai, et al. (2013) [24] Qualitative
(2) Ethnic and religious social capital is positively associated with social cohesion in the community during
Land 2022, 11, 1202 19 of 27
Table A2. Cont.

(1) Small cities should focus more on thick social ties to bring residents together and improve residents’ sense
50 Rich et al. (2013) [130] Qualitative
of belonging to society, rather than only attracting the creative lesser form from outside.
(1) Residents will achieve a higher sense of belonging to a community after neighbourhood renewal.
51 Jalaudin et al. (2012) [131] Qualitative
(2) Residents are less likely to move out of the neighbourhood after renewal than before.
(1) Neighbourhood renewal increased some residents’ social capital, employment, education opportunities,
52 Blessi et al. (2012) [91] Qualitative and cultural participation.
(2) Culture-led neighbourhood renewal can enhance local social capital and human capital in the community.
(1) Some types of social enterprises (such as cafes) can help to increase bonding social capital.
(2) Social enterprises can help to increase bridging social capital by employing different segments of the
53 Bertotti et al. (2011) [132] Qualitative
community.
(3) Bonding social capital may prevent interaction across ethnic groups.
(1) Community engagement depends on the level of linking social capital in a local community.
54 Prior et al. (2012) [25] Qualitative
(2) The stock of social capital can benefit a local community during the renewal project.
(1) Forms of socio-spatial inequalities have intensified and changed in geography or scale during
55 Arbaci et al. (2012) [133] Qualitative
(2) Gentrification may have a significantly associated degree of affordability and commodification in a
neighbourhood.
(1) Culture-led renewal can contribute to social cohesion and unite an increasingly socially heterogeneous
56 Degen et al. (2012) [134] Qualitative
society in the community.
(1) Resident well-being is positively associated with a sense of neighbourhood pride, safety, and quality of
57 Renzaho et al. (2012) [13] Quantitative
services.
(1) Forms of trust in neighbourhood renewal can be categorised into three: receptivity trust, ability trust, and
58 Aitken et al. (2012) [49] Quantitative representative trust.
(2) Trust is context-dependent in neighbourhood regeneration.
(1) Community involvement can create linking social capital between the community and grassroots
59 Turcu (2012) [50] Qualitative
government.
(1) Community enterprises in neighbourhood renewal can help to build social capital, which may increase
60 Bailey (2012) [135] Qualitative
the degree of sense of neighbourhood belonging.
(1) Social capital can help to alleviate demoralization during neighbourhood renewal.
61 Cheung (2012) [136] Quantitative
(2) Social capital is more beneficial to poor people than to rich people.
(1) Community engagement can take advantage of social capital in the community and then put stakeholders
in a governance network of neighbourhood renewal together.
62 Parés et al. (2012) [57] Qualitative
(2) The shared norms generated from bonding social capital are hard to change.
(3) Bridging social capital can help to resolve conflict during the renewal process.
(1) Participatory institutions in neighbourhood renewal can develop and unleash social capital in a
63 Musso et al. (2011) [137] Qualitative
neighbourhood.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 20 of 27
Table A2. Cont.

(1) Social trust is positively associated with norms of citizenship and participation.
64 Zmerli (2010) [67] Qualitative (2) Norms can be classified into four dimensions: the norm of participation, the norm of autonomy, the norm
of social order, and the norm of social citizenship.
(1) There are differences in the level of social capital across different communities.
65 Ha (2010) [138] Quantitative
(2) The duration of residence makes the most considerable impact on social capital.
(1) Urban renewal may result in gentrification, which may lead to the loss of social capital.
66 Turk et al. (2010) [139] Qualitative (2) A landowner association or cooperative can protect social capital in a neighbourhood and lead to the
social mix in an integrative way.
67 Sasaki (2010) [140] Qualitative (1) To promote culture-led regeneration, the vertical administrative structure must be made horizontal.
68 Fallov (2010) [141] Qualitative (1) Social capital provides a measurement tool for community renewal policies.
(1) High-level social capital can help to build an effective and sustainable approach for partnerships during
69 Cornelius et al. (2010) [142] Qualitative
(1) Community engagement can enhance social responsibility and improve social capital and public services
70 Blakeley, et al. (2009) [143] Qualitative
during urban regeneration.
71 Atrhurson (2009) [144] Qualitative (1) The integration of social mix policies and social engineering agendas is important to a renewal project.
72 Gilbert (2009) [145] Qualitative (1) Urban renewal policies may weaken the inhabitants’ social capital.
73 Kleinhans (2009) [146] Quantitative (1) There are differences in the level of social capital across different types of residents.
(1) This study implies regular but long-running cycles of neighbourhood decline and renewal as homes age
and are replaced.
74 Rosenthal (2008) [147] Quantitative
(2) Managers of neighbourhood renewal projects should obtain support from residents with high social
capital in low-income areas.
75 Greenbaum (2008) [148] Qualitative (1) Collective action based on trust and shared norms can help to improve poor areas.
76 Rogers et al. (2008) [149] Qualitative (1) There is a lack of ‘linking’ social capital during the process of neighbourhood renewal.
(1) Allowing residents to participate in neighbourhood renewal affairs can help to build bonding, bridging,
77 Semenza et al. (2006) [18] Quantitative
and linking social capital.
(1) Shared norms, trust, and collective action from cursory, everyday social interactions help to form social
78 Kleinhans et al. (2007) [150] Quantitative capital in neighbourhood renewal.
(2) Resident place attachment and quality are positively associated with social capital.
(1) Wardens should improve trust and mutual understanding between residents, corporations, and grassroots
79 Crawford (2006) [151] Qualitative
governments to increase the level of linking social capital.
(1) Social capital can help community participation to be more democratic and transparent in the planning of
80 Bull et al. (2006) [95] Qualitative a renewal project.
(2) Social capital is not always useful for handling social problems in a renewal project.
(1) Social capital can be seen as a measure index for renewal policy;
81 Hemphill et al. (2006) [152] Qualitative
(2) The collaboration among different stakeholders will help to generate social capital.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 21 of 27
Table A2. Cont.

(1) Increasing structural social capital can help to increase the level of trust in neighbourhood renewal.
82 Lelieveldt (2004) [59] Quantitative
(2) Social capital can help to improve community participation.
(1) The strength of social relationships is significantly associated with trust among stakeholder groups during
83 Hibbitt et al. (2001) [68] Quantitative
the renewal process.
84 Butler et al. (2001) [26] Qualitative (1) The role of social capital for renewal projects varies in different social contexts.
Land 2022, 11, 1202 22 of 27
Appendix C
Table A3. The concept proposed by previous research.
References Categories Concept

Social capital can be seen as a public good. Social capital exists at both individual and macro-levels: At the individual
Shin (2022) [30] Functionalism/- level, social capital can be used to invest in relationships with expected returns; at the macro-level, social capital
focusses on the collective property, such as community cohesion, relational structure and trust.
Social capital contains various elements such as trust, social norms, and social networks, which can be used to improve
Functionalism/
Natalia et al. (2021) [31] the sense of neighbourhood belonging, community participation, and the general trust toward government and other
Individual-level
informal organisations.
Functionalism/ Social capital can be seen as the outcomes of community participation and the incubator for reciprocity and trust in the
Du et al. (2020) [32]
Collective-level community.
Functionalism/ Social capital contains various elements such as the length of residents, the degree of satisfaction with a
Kim et al. (2019) [33]
Individual-level neighbourhood, and the willingness to participate in public affairs.
Functionalism/ Social capital includes trust toward neighbours, willingness to participate in public affairs, informal neighbouring
Ryu et al. (2018) [34]
Individual-level behaviour, and general trust toward the collective actions in the community.
Social capital can be defined as reciprocity in homogeneous groups such as friends and family, and connections in
Versey et al. (2018) [118] -/Individual-level
heterogeneous groups such as neighbours and other acquaintances in the community.
Functionalism/
Fenster et al. (2016) [121] Social capital can be defined as a community asset, which can be obtained from the system of social relationships
Collective-level
Social capital can be classified into three categories: individual social capital, group social capital, and whole society
Doris et al. (2014) [23] Structuralism/-
social capital, which refers to the social network structure and mutual values.
Structuralism/
Zhai et al. (2013) [24] Social capital can be defined as the form of human relationships which can be used for self-interest.
Individual-level
Functionalism/ Social capital can put members of a group together by developing shared norms and informal rules and can coordinate
Blessi et al. (2012) [91]
Collective-level member actions for common goals.
Structuralism/ Social capital is a community construct, which can generate social networks, norms, and trust, and benefit neighbours
Renzaho et al. (2012) [13]
Collective-level and communities.
Prior et al. (2012) [25] Structuralism/- Social capital is the outcome of a social network, which contains bonding, bridging, and linking social capital.
Functionalism/ Social capital can be seen as one kind of resource related to the social cohesion and economic prosperity of local
Fallov (2010) [141]
Collective-level communities and nationwide. Social capital can be simply understood as trust, contact, and social cohesion.
Functionalism/
Ha (2010) [139] Social capital includes social cohesion, reciprocity, shared norms, and connectedness in the community.
Collective-level
Kleinhans et al. (2007) [150] -/Collective-level Social capital includes the interactions among residents, social norms, trust, and collective actions.
Social capital can be defined as the willingness of citizens to participate in public affairs in social networks to produce
Bull et al. (2006) [95] /Collective-level
collective goods.
Structuralism/
Butler et al. (2001) [26] Social capital refers to the potential and actual resources embedded in social networks.
Collective-level
Land 2022, 11, 1202 23 of 27
References
1. Li, X.; Hui, E.C.M.; Chen, T.T.; Lang, W.; Guo, Y.L. From Habitat III to the new urbanization agenda in China: Seeing through the
practices of the “three old renewals” in Guangzhou. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 513–522. [CrossRef]
2. Pennen, T.V.D.; Bortel, G.V. Exemplary urban practitioners in neighbourhood renewal: Survival of the fittest . . . and the fitting.
Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2015, 27, 1323–1342. [CrossRef]
3. Tin, W.J.; Lee, S.H. Development of neighbourhood renewal in Malaysia through case study for middle income households in
New Village Jinjang, KualaLumpur. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 32, 191–201. [CrossRef]
4. Cai, Y.N.; Yang, X.J.; Li, D.L. “Micro-transformation”: The renewal method of old urban community. Urban Dev. Stud. 2017, 24,
29–34. (In Chinese)
5. Zheng, H.W.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Song, Y.; Sun, B.X.; Hong, J.K. Neighborhood sustainability in urban renewal: An assessment
framework. Environ. Plan. B-Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 902–924. [CrossRef]
6. Nicolas, G.; Jordi, J.; Elisabet, V. Can urban renewal policies reverse neighborhood ethnic dynamics? J. Econ. Geogr. 2020, 20,
419–457.
7. Dargan, L. Participation and local urban regeneration: The case of the new deal for communities (NDC) in the UK. Reg. Stud.
2009, 43, 305–317. [CrossRef]
8. Regulations for the Installation of Additional Lifts in Existing Residential Buildings in Guangzhou; The People’s Government of
Guangzhou Municipality: Guangzhou, China, 2016.
9. Regulations for the Installation of Additional Lifts in Existing Residential Buildings in Shantou; The People’s Government of Shantou
Municipality: Shantou, China, 2014.
10. Wang, J.S. Insights from the First Eight Districts on How to Tackle the Difficulties of Urban Renewal. Available online: https:
//weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404567455862489170#_loginLayer_1616918430050 (accessed on 27 June 2021).
11. Halpern, D. Social Capital; Polity Press: Malden, MA, USA, 2005.
12. Paul, S.A.; Seok, W.K. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40.
13. Renzaho, A.M.N.; Richardson, B.; Strugnell, C. Resident well-being, community connections, and neighbourhood perceptions,
pride, and opportunities among disadvantage metropolitan and regional communities: Evidence from the neighbourhood
renewal project. J. Community Psychol. 2012, 40, 871–885. [CrossRef]
14. Han, S. Social capital and interlocal service collaboration in US counties. Reg. Stud. 2017, 51, 674–687. [CrossRef]
15. Kalyanaram, G. The negative effects of social capital in organisations: A review and extension. NMIMS Manag. Rev. 2018, 36, 6–9.
16. Chahardowli, M.; Sajadzadeh, H.; Aram, F.; Mosavi, A. Survey of sustainable regeneration of historic and cultural cores of cities.
Energies 2020, 13, 2708. [CrossRef]
17. Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269. [CrossRef]
18. Semenza, J.C.; March, T.L.; Bontempo, B.D. Community-initiated urban development: An ecological intervention. J. Urban Health
2006, 48, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Barber, A.; Pareja-Eastaway, M. Leadership challenges in the inner city: Planning for sustainable regeneration in Birmingham and
Barcelona. Policy Stud. 2010, 31, 393–411. [CrossRef]
20. Carrillo-Aivarez, E.; Kawachi, I.; Riera-Roman, J. Neighbourhood social capital and obesity: A systematic review of the literature.
Obes. Rev. 2018, 201, 119–141.
21. Esser, H. The Handbook of Social Capital; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008.
22. Esperanza, V.; Fernando, E.G.; Jose, A.G.; Jose, L.C. Are theories about social capital empirically supported? Evidence from the
farming sector. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 114, 1331–1359.
23. Doris, D.; Florian, R. The “Comprehensive village renewal programme in Burgenland” as a means a strengthening the social
capital in rural areas. Eur. Countrys. 2014, 1, 18–35.
24. Zhai, B.Q.; Ng, M.K. Urban regeneration and social capital in China: A case study of the Drum Tower Muslim District in Xi’an.
Cities 2013, 35, 14–25. [CrossRef]
25. Prior, J.; Blessi, G.T. Social capital, local communities and culture-led urban regeneration processes: The Sydney Olympic Park
experience. Cosmop. Civ. Soc. 2012, 4, 3. [CrossRef]
26. Butler, T.; Robson, G. Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: A comparison of three South London
neighbourhoods. Urban Stud. 2001, 38, 2145–2162. [CrossRef]
27. Bourdieu, P. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Greenwood Press: Westport, CN, USA, 1986.
28. Fu, Q. How does the neighborhood inform activism? Civic engagement in urban transformation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
29. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
30. Shin, B. Determinants of social capital from a network perspective: A case of Sinchon regeneration project using exponential
random graph models. Cities 2022, 120, 103419. [CrossRef]
31. Natalia, L.; Vanessa, P.; Alejandra, V.; Paola, O.; Mercè, G. Effects of an urban regeneration program on related social determinants
of health in Chile: A pre-post intervention study. Health Place 2021, 68, 102511.
32. Du, T.; Zeng, N.; Huang, Y.; Yejre, H. Relationship between the dynamics of social capital and the dynamics of residential
satisfaction under the impact of urban renewal. Cities 2020, 107, 102933. [CrossRef]
Land 2022, 11, 1202 24 of 27
33. Kim, H.; Marcouiller, D.W.; Choi, Y. Urban redevelopment with justice implications: The role of social justice and social capital in
residential relocation decisions. Urban Aff. Rev. 2019, 55, 288–320. [CrossRef]
34. Ryu, H.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, S. Participatory neighborhood revitalization effects on social capital: Evidence from community building
projects in Seoul. J. Urban Plan. 2018, 144, 04017025. [CrossRef]
35. Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120. [CrossRef]
36. Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tao, R. Social capital and migrant housing experiences in urban China: A structural equation modelling analysis.
Hous. Stud. 2013, 28, 1155–1174. [CrossRef]
37. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266.
[CrossRef]
38. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91, 481–510. [CrossRef]
39. Jung, T.H.; Lee, J.; Yap, M.H.; Ineson, E.M. The role of stakeholder collaboration in culture-led urban regeneration: A case study
of the Gwangju project, Korea. Cities 2015, 44, 29–39. [CrossRef]
40. Souza, T.M.D. Urban regeneration and tenure mix: Exploring the dynamics of neighbour interactions. Hous. Stud. 2019, 34,
1521–1542. [CrossRef]
41. Painter, J. The politics of the neighbour. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2012, 30, 515–533. [CrossRef]
42. Volker, B.; Flap, H. Sixteen million neighbours: A multilevel study of the role of neighbours in the personal networks of the Dutch.
Urban Aff. Rev. 2007, 43, 256–284. [CrossRef]
43. Ramon, H.A.E.; Kozak, R.; Harshaw, H.; Tindall, D. Differential effects of cognitive and structural social capital on empowerment
in two community ecotourism projects in Ghana. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 31, 57–73. [CrossRef]
44. Innes, J.E. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996, 62,
460–472. [CrossRef]
45. Carriere, M. Chicago, the south side planning board, and the search for (Further) order: Toward an intellectual lineage of urban
renewal in post war America. J. Urban Hist. 2012, 39, 411–432. [CrossRef]
46. Qian, L.; Yang, P.; Xue, J. Hindering or enabling structural social capital to enhance buyer performance? The role of relational
social capital at two levels in China. J. Bus.—Bus. Mark. 2018, 25, 213–231. [CrossRef]
47. Arrow, K. Political and economic evaluation of social effects and externalities. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 1970, 1–30.
48. Meng, A.; Clausen, T.; Borg, V. The association between team-level social capital and individual-level work engagement:
Differences between subtypes of social capital and the impact of intra-team agreement. Scand. J. Psychol. 2018, 59, 198–205.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Aitken, D. Trust and participation in urban regeneration. People Place Policy Online 2012, 6, 133–147. [CrossRef]
50. Turcu, C. Local experiences of urban sustainability: Researching housing market renewal interventions in three English neigh-
bourhoods. Prog. Plan. 2012, 78, 101–150. [CrossRef]
51. Stratigea, A.; Kikidou, M.; Patelida, M.; Somarakis, G. Engaging citizens in planning open public space regeneration: Pedio Agora
framework. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2018, 144, 05017016. [CrossRef]
52. Jackson, C. The effect of urban renewal on fragmented social and political engagement in urban environments. J. Urban Aff. 2019,
41, 503–517. [CrossRef]
53. Mathers, J.; Parry, J.; Jones, S. Exploring resident (non-) participation in the UK new deal for communities regeneration programme.
Urban Stud. 2008, 45, 591–606. [CrossRef]
54. Huang, K.; Pai, B. A study on promotion mechanisms and the future of government-led urban renewal projects from the
perspective of land ethics. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 3, 22–38. [CrossRef]
55. Izadi, A.; Mohammadi, M.; Nasekhian, S.; Memar, S. Structural functionalism, social sustainability and the historic environment:
A role for theory in urban regeneration. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2020, 11, 158–180. [CrossRef]
56. Kramer, D.; Lakerveld, J.; Stronks, K.; Kunst, A. Uncovering how urban regeneration programs may stimulate leisure-time
walking among adults in deprived areas: A realist review. Int. J. Health Serv. 2017, 47, 703–724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Parés, M.; Bonet, M.J.; Martí-Costa, M. Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance
networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Aff. Rev. 2012, 48, 238–271. [CrossRef]
58. Chan, H.H.; Hu, T.; Fan, P. Social sustainability of urban regeneration led by industrial land redevelopment in Taiwan. Eur. Plan.
Stud. 2019, 27, 1245–1269. [CrossRef]
59. Lelieveldt, H. Helping citizens help themselves. Urban Aff. Rev. 2004, 39, 531–551. [CrossRef]
60. Alenka, S.; Savis, G.; Coline, S.; Yan, X.; Carmel, L. An interactive tool for citizens’ involvement in the sustainable regeneration.
Facilities 2020, 38, 859–870.
61. McNeill, L.H.; Kreuter, M.W.; Subramanian, S.V. Social environment and physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence.
Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 63, 1011–1022. [CrossRef]
62. Dalton, R.J. Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Stud. 2008, 56, 76–98. [CrossRef]
63. Sepe, M. Urban transformation, socio-economic regeneration and participation: Two cases of creative urban regeneration. Int. J.
Urban Sustain. Dev. 2014, 6, 20–41. [CrossRef]
64. Zewdie, M.; Worku, H.; Bantider, A. Inner city urban renewal: Assessing the sustainability and implications for urban landscape
change of Addis Ababa. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 1249–1275. [CrossRef]
Land 2022, 11, 1202 25 of 27
65. Hindhede, A. Neighbourhood renewal, participation, and social capital in deprived areas: Unintended consequences in a Nordic
context. Eur. Soc. 2016, 18, 535–559. [CrossRef]
66. Dalton, R.J. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American Politics; CQ Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
67. Zmerli, S. Social capital and norms of citizenship: An ambiguous relationship? Am. Behav. Sci. 2010, 53, 657–676. [CrossRef]
68. Hibbitt, K.; Jones, P.; Meegan, R. Tackling social exclusion: The role of social capital in urban regeneration on Merseyside—From
mistrust to trust? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2001, 9, 141–161.
69. Thorlindsson, T.; Valdimarsdóttir, M.; Jonsson, S. Community social structure, social capital and adolescent smoking: A multi-level
analysis. Health Place 2012, 18, 796–804. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Thorlindsson, T. Bring in the social context: Towards an integrated approach to health promotion and prevention. Scand. J. Public
Health 2011, 39, 19–25. [CrossRef]
71. Grabkowska, M. Between gentrification and reurbanisation. The participatory dimension of bottom-up regeneration in Gdańsk,
Poland. Geografie 2015, 120, 210–225. [CrossRef]
72. Kim, H. Effects of social capital on collective action for community development. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2018, 46, 1011–1028.
[CrossRef]
73. Warren, M.R.; Thompson, J.P.; Saegert, S. The role of social capital in combating poverty. Soc. Cap. Poor Communities 2001, 3, 1–28.
74. Pollock, V.L.; Sharp, J. Real participation or the tyranny of participatory practice? Public art and community involvement in the
regeneration of the Raploch, Scotland. Urban Stud. 2012, 49, 3063–3079. [CrossRef]
75. Cho, M.; Kim, J. Coupling urban regeneration with age-friendliness: Neighborhood regeneration in Jangsu Village, Seoul. Cities
2016, 58, 107–114. [CrossRef]
76. Burns, V.F.; Lavoie, J.P.; Rose, D. Revisiting the role of neighbourhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. J.
Aging Res. 2012, 2012, 148287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Lisa, W.; Billie, G. Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place? J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 154–163.
78. Lewicka, M. Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. J. Environ. Psychol.
2005, 25, 381–395. [CrossRef]
79. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J. Perceived residential environment of neighborhood and subjective well-being among the elderly in China: A
mediating role of sense of community. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 82–94. [CrossRef]
80. Amaldoss, W.; Jain, S. Trading up: A strategic analysis of reference group effects. Mark. Sci. 2008, 27, 932–942. [CrossRef]
81. Jia, S.; Xu, X. Community-level social capital and agricultural cooperatives: Evidence from Hebei, China. Agribusiness 2021, 37,
82. Shen, T.; Yao, X.; Wen, F. The urban regeneration engine model: An analytical framework and case study of the renewal of old
communities. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105571. [CrossRef]
83. Swyngedouw, E. Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Stud. 2005, 42,
1991–2006. [CrossRef]
84. Cornelissen, J.; Haslam, S.; Balmer, J. Social identity, organisational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated
understanding of processes, patternings and products. Br. J. Manag. 2007, 18, S1–S16. [CrossRef]
85. Chen, Y.; Qu, L. Emerging participative approaches for urban regeneration in Chinese megacities. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2019, 146,
04019029. [CrossRef]
86. Czupich, M. Level of social participation in the creation of urban regeneration programmes-The case study of small towns in
Poland. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2018, 25, 81–98. [CrossRef]
87. Cox, E. Creating a more civil society: Community level indicators of social capital. Just Policy A J. Aust. Soc. Policy 2000, 19,
100–107.
88. Hong, Z.; Park, I. Is the well-being of neighboring cities important to me? Analysis of the spatial effect of social capital and urban
amenities in South Korea. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021, 154, 169–190. [CrossRef]
89. Villalonga-Olives, E.; Kawachi, I. The dark side of social capital: A systematic review of the negative health effects of social
capital. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 194, 105–127. [CrossRef]
90. Portes, A. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998, 24, 43–67. [CrossRef]
91. Blessi, G.; Tremblay, D.; Sandri, M.; Pilati, T. New trajectories in urban regeneration processes: Cultural capital as source of
human and social capital accumulation—Evidence from the case of Tohu in Montreal. Cities 2012, 29, 397–407. [CrossRef]
92. Ayca, Z. Differentiated urban citizenship and housing rights: Analysing the social impacts of urban redevelopment in globalizing
Istanbul. Int. Plan. Stud. 2014, 19, 268–291.
93. Wang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Gao, X.; Gao, B. Collaborative decision-making for urban regeneration: A literature review and bibliometric
analysis. Land Use Policy 2021, 107, 105479. [CrossRef]
94. Annahita, M.E.; Mary, J.D.S. Social capital and common mental disorder: A systematic review. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
2015, 69, 1021–1028.
95. Bull, A.C.; Jones, B. Governance and social capital in urban regeneration: A Comparison between Bristol and Naples. Urban Stud.
2006, 43, 767–786. [CrossRef]
96. Powell, W.W.; Smith Doerr, L. The Handbook of Economic Sociology; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994; pp.
368–402.
97. Martin, J.L. Power, authority, and the constraint of belief systems. Am. J. Sociol. 2002, 107, 861–904. [CrossRef]
Land 2022, 11, 1202 26 of 27
98. Gabbay, S.; Leenders, R. CSC: The structure of advantage and disadvantage. In Corporate Social Capital and Liability; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999.
99. Stephen, G.; Maria, R.D. ‘Deep engagement’ and urban regeneration: Tea, trust, and the quest for co-design at precinct scale. Land
Use Policy 2016, 52, 363–373.
100. Arneil, B. Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
101. McLean, S. Diverse communities: The problem with social capital by Barbara Arneil. Political Sci. Q. 2007, 122, 683–685. [CrossRef]
102. Nakano, S.; Washizu, A. Will smart cities enhance the social capital of residents? The importance of smart neighborhood
management. Cities 2021, 115, 103244. [CrossRef]
103. Liu, Z.; Wei, Y.; Li, Q.; Lan, J. The mediating role of social capital in digital information technology poverty reduction an empirical
study in urban and rural China. Land 2021, 10, 634. [CrossRef]
104. Pourzakarya, M.; Bahramjerdi, S.F.N. Community-led regeneration practice in Ghalam Gudeh district, Bandar Anzali, Iran: A
participatory action research (PAR) Project. Land Use Policy 2021, 105, 105416. [CrossRef]
105. Eoin, M.; Christine, B.S. Urban social regeneration through local sports clubs: A case study of Ballymun, Dublin and Setanta
GAA. Sport Soc. 2020, 24, 1649–1666.
106. Dejan, I. Urban regeneration and changes driven by tourism and the ‘Skopje 20140 project. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2021, 17,
94–114.
107. May, T.; Pauline, E.; Maria, E.A. Evolving social capital and networks in the post-disaster rebuilding process: The case of Typhoon
Yolanda. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2021, 62, 56–71.
108. Xiao, Y.; Miao, S.; Sarkar, C.; Fan, L.; Li, Z. Do neighborhood ties matter for residents’ mental health in affordable housing:
Evidence from Guangzhou, China. Cities 2020, 100, 102666. [CrossRef]
109. Kim, G.; Newman, G.; Jiang, B. Urban regeneration: Community engagement process for vacant land in declining cities. Cities
2020, 102, 102730. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. Gabriela, B.C.; Oliver, I.; Johann, J.; Uwe-jens, W. Innovations in spatial planning as a social process—Phases, actors, conflicts. Eur.
Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 496–520.
111. Li, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Roders, A.P.; Wesemael, P. Informing or consulting? Exploring community participation within urban
heritage management in China. Habitat Int. 2020, 105, 102268. [CrossRef]
112. Tong, D.; Zhang, Y.; MacLachlan, I.; Li, G. Migrant housing choices from a social capital perspective: The case of Shenzhen, China.
Habitat Int. 2020, 96, 102082. [CrossRef]
113. Aguda, O.; Ebohon, O.J. Relationships between young adults’ housing tenure, elements of perceived job security and social
capital in Britain. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2020, 14, 178–191. [CrossRef]
114. Lima, M.F.; Thompson, C.W.; Aspinall, P. Friendly communities and outdoor spaces in contexts of urban population decline. Land
2020, 9, 439. [CrossRef]
115. Kim, H.; Chung, J.; Lee, M. Social network analysis of the Jangwi urban regeneration community. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4185.
[CrossRef]
116. Greene, G.; Fone, D.; Farewell, D.; Rodgers, S.; Paranjothy, S.; Carter, B.; White, J. Improving mental health through neighbourhood
regeneration: The role of cohesion, belonging, quality and disorder. Eur. J. Public Health 2019, 30, 964–966. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117. Guo, B.; Li, Y.; Wang, J. The improvement strategy on the management status of the old residence community in Chinese cities:
An empirical research based on social cognitive perspective. Cogn. Syst. Res. 2018, 52, 556–570. [CrossRef]
118. Versey, H.S. A tale of two Harlems: Gentrification, social capital, and implications for aging in place. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 214,
1–11. [CrossRef]
119. Ferilli, G.; Sacco, P.L.; Blessi, G.T.; Forbici, S. Power to the people: When culture works as a social catalyst in urban regeneration
processes (and when it does not). Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 241–258. [CrossRef]
120. Alistair, B.; David, C. Assessing the potential and limits of community-based initiatives in urban regeneration: Three decades of
experience on Sheffield’s Manor estate. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2017, 4, 80–93.
121. Fenster, T.; Eizenberg, E. Planning with communities in regeneration projects: Toward a gendered civic capacity. Gend. Place Cult.
2016, 23, 1254–1269. [CrossRef]
122. Gent, W.P.C.; Boterman, W.R.; Grondelle, M.W. Surveying the fault lines in social tectonics; Neighbourhood boundaries in a
socially-mixed renewal area. Theory Soc. 2016, 33, 247–267.
123. Filip, M.A.; Lisa, P.; Alex, Z.; Erika, R.; Elisa, G.; Andrea, C. Identifying sustainability communicators in urban regeneration:
Integrating individual and relational attributes. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 278–291.
124. Phillips, M. Assets and affect in the study of social capital in rural communities. Sociol. Rural. 2016, 56, 220–247. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
125. Hiroshi, M.; Yu, N.; Eri, M.; Mariko, N.; Yu, T.; Yoshinori, F.; Shoji, S. Are neighborhood bonding and bridging social capital
protective against depressive mood in old age? A multilevel analysis in Japan. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 124, 171–179.
126. Muir, J. Bridging and Linking in a Divided Society: A social capital case study from Northern Ireland. Urban Stud. 2011, 48,
127. Hamdan, H.; Yusof, F.; Marzukhi, M.A. Social capital and quality of life in urban neighborhoods high density housing. Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 169–179. [CrossRef]
Land 2022, 11, 1202 27 of 27
128. Marc, P.; Marc, P.; Ismael, B. Geographies of governance: How place matters in urban regeneration policies. Urban Stud. 2014, 51,
3250–3267.
129. Fuller, A.; Rizvi, S.; Unwin, L. Apprenticeships and regeneration: The civic struggle to achieve social and economic goals. Br. J.
Educ. Stud. 2013, 61, 63–78. [CrossRef]
130. Rich, M.A. “From coal to cool”: The creative class, social capital, and the revitalization of Scranton. J. Urban Aff. 2013, 35, 365–384.
[CrossRef]
131. Jalaudin, B.; Maxwell, M.; Saddik, B.; Lobb, E.; Byun, R.; Gutierrez, R.; Paszek, J. A pre-and-post study of an urban renewal
program in a socially disadvantaged neighbourhood in Sydney, Australia. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 521.
132. Bertotti, M.; Harden, A.; Renton, A.; Sheridan, K. The contribution of a social enterprise to the building of social capital in a
disadvantaged urban area of London. Community Dev. J. 2011, 47, 168–183. [CrossRef]
133. Arbaci, S.; Tapada-Berteli, T. Social inequality and urban regeneration in Barcelona city centre: Reconsidering success. Eur. Urban
Reg. Stud. 2012, 19, 287–311. [CrossRef]
134. Degen, M.; Garcia, M. The transformation of the ‘Barcelona Model’: An analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance.
Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2012, 36, 1022–1038. [CrossRef]
135. Bailey, N. The role, organisation and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK. Prog. Plan.
2012, 77, 1–35. [CrossRef]
136. Cheung, C.; Leung, K. Social mitigation of the impact of urban renewal on residents’ morale. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 106, 523–543.
[CrossRef]
137. Musso, J.; Weare, C.; Bryer, T.; Cooper, T.L. Toward “strong democracy” in global cities? Social capital building, theory-driven
reform, and the Los Angeles neighborhood council experience. Public Adm. Rev. 2011, 71, 102–111. [CrossRef]
138. Ha, S. Housing, social capital and community development in Seoul. Cities 2010, 27, S35–S42. [CrossRef]
139. Turk, S.S.; Altes, W.K.K. How suitable is LR for renewal of inner city areas? An analysis for Turkey. Cities 2010, 27, 326–336.
[CrossRef]
140. Sasaki, M. Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese
case study. Cities 2010, 27, S3–S9. [CrossRef]
141. Fallov, M.A. Community capacity building as the route to inclusion in neighbourhood regeneration? Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2010,
34, 789–804. [CrossRef]
142. Cornelius, N.; Wallace, J. Cross-sector partnerships: City regeneration and social justice. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 71–84. [CrossRef]
143. Blakeley, G.; Evans, B. Who participates, how and why in urban regeneration projects? The case of the new ‘City’ of east
Manchester. Soc. Policy Adm. 2009, 43, 15–32. [CrossRef]
144. Arthurson, K. Operationalising social mix: Spatial scale, lifestyle and stigma as mediating points in resident interaction. Urban
Policy Res. 2010, 28, 49–63. [CrossRef]
145. Gilbert, P. Social stakes of urban renewal: Recent French housing policy. Build. Res. Inf. 2009, 37, 638–648. [CrossRef]
146. Kleinhans, R. ‘Does social capital affect residents’ propensity to move from restructured neighbourhoods? Hous. Stud. 2009, 24,
147. Rosenthal, S.S. Old homes, externalities, and poor neighborhoods. A model of urban decline and renewal. J. Urban Econ. 2008, 63,
148. Greenbaum, S. Poverty and the willful destruction of social capital: Displacement and dispossession in African American
communities. Rethink. Marx. 2008, 20, 42–54. [CrossRef]
149. Rogers, A.; Huxley, P.; Evans, S.; Gately, C. More than jobs and houses: Mental health, quality of life and the perceptions of
locality in an area undergoing urban regeneration. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2008, 43, 364–372. [CrossRef]
150. Kleinhans, R.; Priemus, H.; Engbersen, G. Understanding social capital in recently restructured urban neighbourhoods: Two case
studies in Rotterdam. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 1069–1091. [CrossRef]
151. Crawford, A. ‘Fixing broken promises?’: Neighbourhood wardens and social capital. Urban Stud. 2006, 43, 957–976. [CrossRef]
152. Hemphill, L.; McGreal, S.; Berry, J.; Watson, S. Leadership, power and multisector urban regeneration partnerships. Urban Stud.
2006, 43, 59–80. [CrossRef]

Land 11 01202 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Land 11 01202 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land 11 01202 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

land

Land 2022, 11, 1202. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081202 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

project management goals. It is important to note that successful neighbourhood renewal

2. Literature Search and Research Framework Development

 The trust between communities and Structure Dimension

Social Structure (2.2.3) 

 The macro-social level (Community

High power level

Low power level

Line Structural social capital

Thickness of the lines Relational social capital

3.2. Formulation of Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal

Secondly, norms among residents in neighbourhood renewal refer to the level of

3.3. The Association between Social Capital and Neighbourhood Renewal

3.3.1. The Positive Association

3.3.2. The Negative Association

4. Conclusions and Avenues for Future Research

Table A1. Reference cluster.

Table A1. Cont.

Table A1. Cont.

Table A2. Reviewed studies on social capital in neighbourhood renewal.

References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

Table A2. Cont.

References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

Table A2. Cont.

References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

Table A2. Cont.

References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

Table A2. Cont.

References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

Table A2. Cont.

References Research Method Main Statements/Findings

Table A3. The concept proposed by previous research.

References Categories Concept

You might also like