Critical barriers and countermeasures to urban regeneration from the stakeholder perspective: a literature review

1. Introduction

Urban deterioration and incompatibility have become widespread in many countries and regions due to the rapid growth of global urbanization. Urban renewal has emerged as a practical approach worldwide contributing to urban-related issues, such as slums' clean-up and physical environment (Doshi, 2013; Roberts and Okanya, 2022), land and housing appreciation (Wu, 2016; Lan and Lee, 2021), enriched public goods and services (Cheng et al., 2021; Wang S. et al., 2022), enhanced social inclusion of vulnerable groups (Liu et al., 2018), environmental quality improvement and urban ecology restoration (Ameen and Mourshed, 2017; Ahmad et al., 2020), and heritage preservation (Jung et al., 2015). Urban renewal involves multiple stakeholders, such as local government, real estate developers, residents, migrants, and the public (Wu, 2004; Biggar, 2021; Zhang W. et al., 2021). Sustainable urban renewal with the broad participation of multiple stakeholders has been globally accepted as an effective strategy for achieving sustainable urban development (Bugl et al., 2012; Zheng et al., 2014; Zhuang et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019). In this sense, urban regeneration seeks to improve the social, economic, and ecological elements of urban areas through a variety of patterns, such as urban rehabilitation, urban redevelopment, and heritage preservation (Jung et al., 2015; Mirzakhani et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021).

However, urban regeneration projects are exceedingly challenging. In the last two decades, urban regeneration has attracted widespread discussion and debate from academia, government agencies, and practitioners, providing rich guidance to optimize the urban regeneration process (Roberts and Sykes, 2000; Jones and Evans, 2013; Leary and McCarthy, 2013; Tallon, 2013; Roberts et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2021). Different countries and regions have witnessed many challenges in urban regeneration, given the internal and external factors (Erfani and Roe, 2020; Zhang W. et al., 2021). Most regeneration projects could not produce some expected outcomes due to their longer development cycle, high uncertainty and risk, and low profit (Zhang W. et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). Urban renewal covers multifaceted processes, such as decision-making, planning, implementation, and operation management, and requires the collaboration of stakeholders (Bottero et al., 2017; Wu W. et al., 2020), which further multiplies its complexity and makes it more challenging. Urban regeneration also triggers a spectrum of undesirable results, such as social injustice and inequality, sparking widespread debate and criticism among the general public (Tan and Altrock, 2016; Xian and Gu, 2020).

Stakeholders' expectations and demand preferences for urban regeneration vary widely in social, economic, and environmental concerns, leading to different conflicts (Lee and Chan, 2008; Wang et al., 2017; Zhuang et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2021). Conflicts among stakeholders also bring out several social problems. For example, unbalanced benefit distribution could harm the interests of disadvantaged groups and intensify social exclusion (Jiang et al., 2020), while violent eviction leads to displacement and social unrest (Yu et al., 2017; Ramiller, 2022). Moreover, insufficient participation reduces residents' sense of belonging and wellbeing (Fung, 2015). In addition, driven by economic interests, property-led regeneration destroyed the urban fabric through massive demolition and reconstruction (Kovács et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2013) without consideration of heritage conservation (Mirzakhani et al., 2021). These negative impacts impede the sustainable development of urban renewal. Accordingly, the stakeholder behavior in urban regeneration arouses more attention in current research. For example, Wang et al. (2021) systematically reviewed prior studies and emphasized collaborative decision-making among various stakeholders from three aspects, i.e., policies and strategies, stakeholder management, and approaches and tools.

This paper contributes to the standing literature on urban regeneration fields in two ways. First, through bibliometric analysis and systematic review, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the research evolution and critical barriers in urban regeneration from the stakeholder perspective, thus filling a gap in the current literature. Second, this study proposed a strategic framework for value creation, collaborative governance, and benefit sharing, and the corresponding future research agenda provides actionable recommendations for the research community. Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of the critical barriers and potential strategies in urban regeneration and provides a roadmap for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in this field.

Therefore, this paper summarizes barriers and challenges in urban renewal from the stakeholder perspective. First, the research method is introduced, followed by the bibliometric analysis. Then, the critical review section analyzes vital obstacles and challenges from several aspects. Primary obstacles lie in financial issues, demolition and compensation, land redevelopment, planning, public participation, policy support, heritage conservation, and social externalities. Finally, the framework of value creation, collaborative governance, and mutual benefit is proposed to solve the existing problems, and corresponding future research directions are proposed.

2. Methodology

2.1. Paper retrieval

To comprehensively understand recent research in urban regeneration domains, we conduct a literature search on the Web of Science (WOS) core database. Articles related to urban regeneration are retrieved, selected, and analyzed. Firstly, based on the definition of urban regeneration and stakeholders, the search rule employed in the title/abstract/keyword fields of WOS was (TS = (“urban renewal” OR “urban regeneration” OR “urban redevelopment” OR “urban rehabilitation”) AND TS = (stakeholder^*)) with a time span of 2000–2022. Only peer-reviewed journal articles are included in retrieval, with the exclusion of conference articles, book reviews, and editorials. Then, duplicates are excluded based on the title and authors. After skimming the title, abstract, keywords, and conclusions, irrelevant articles are also removed. Finally, 347 papers are retained for bibliometric analysis and critical review.

2.2. Bibliometric approach

Bibliometric analysis is an effective approach to conducting literature analysis that combines quantitative analysis with visualization benefits to help researchers better understand the dynamics of research development. This process can be completed by different software tools, such as Bibexcel, CiteSpace, SciMAT, and VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2017; Tian et al., 2018; López-Robles et al., 2019; Azam et al., 2021). Among these, “Bibliometrix,” a software package based on R-environment (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017), offers a more flexible and efficient way to conduct this process (Shi et al., 2020). Therefore, it is utilized in this study to demonstrate the challenges in urban regeneration in recent studies from the stakeholder viewpoint.

3. Bibliometric

3.1. Journal publications

Urban regeneration-related articles are published in a wide range of journals, and 347 selected papers are published in 173 different journals. As shown in Table 1, about one-third of the articles are published in the top five journals, namely Sustainability, Land Use Policy, Cities, Habitat International, and European Planning Studies. Most articles are published in the field of urban studies.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Number of selected papers by journals (three and above).

The number of publications is shown in Figure 1, which traces the development trend of studies on urban regeneration over the past two decades. The trend is upward, with the number of publications in 2020 more than tripling that of 2016, implying that stakeholder issues in urban regeneration have gained more attention in the last 5 years.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Number of published papers by year.

3.2. Most cited countries and collaboration world map

Table 2 shows the most cited countries of the selected papers with total citations (TC) and average article citations. China ranks first, followed by the United Kingdom, Italy, and the Netherlands, implying that many scholars in these countries concentrate on stakeholders in urban renewal and that their work is frequently mentioned by other academics. Singapore, the Netherlands, and Ireland are the top 3 countries in terms of the average number of citations per article, indicating that their work is widely cited by other scholars and that their studies also provide implications and references for urban renewal research in other regions.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Most cited countries.

Figure 2 plots the world map of collaboration in urban renewal. Researchers from China, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and Italy work with academics from other countries more frequently, indicating that these researchers are more engaged in international cooperation and that the urban renewal experiences in these countries are more instructive for academics and practitioners from other countries.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Collaboration world map.

3.3. Trend topics and thematic map

Figures 3, 4 plot trend topics and the thematic map by authors' keywords, respectively. Adaptive reuse, circular economy, public participation, stakeholders and cultural heritage have been trending topics in the last 3 years. In the past decade, topics like governance, sustainability, and gentrification have attracted more attention from the research community. Notably, China is one of the most active countries in urban renewal research.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Trend topics by authors' keywords.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Thematic map by authors' keywords.

Relevant topics can be divided into motor themes, niche themes, emerging or declining themes and basic themes in the thematic map by relevance degree and development degree in urban renewal. Gentrification, community participation and planning, sustainability and stakeholders are fundamental topics in urban regeneration, placed in the fourth quadrant. Public participation, adaptive reuse, cultural heritage, smart cities and decision support are included in the first quadrant, regarded as motor themes, indicating these topics are pretty relevant and well-developed. In contrast, social innovation is an emerging theme, whereas the urban village is a declining theme, and they are both included in the third quadrant.

3.4. Co-occurrence analysis

By filtering keywords based on the threshold of two occurrences, a co-occurrence network of 347 selected publications is presented to visualize the structure of urban regeneration studies from the stakeholder perspective, as shown in Figure 5. The keywords in chosen articles are divided into several clusters, each representing a major research branch or direction.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of keywords of urban regeneration studies.

Specifically, the red cluster, which is the largest one, includes “governance, management, policy, sustainability, public participation, neighborhood, performance, decision-making, design, construction, and infrastructure.” This cluster emphasizes the entire process of urban regeneration, such as decision-making, design, and construction (Hunt, 2006; Bottero et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2019; Yiannakou, 2020). Relevant studies focus on collaborative governance among stakeholders (Liu and Xu, 2018; Vandenbussche, 2018), policy support (Li et al., 2019), sustainability goals (Zheng et al., 2014; Lan and Lee, 2021), and public participation (Li et al., 2020).

“Property rights, land, state, market, and transformation” are essential topics highlighted in the purple cluster, emphasizing urban regeneration elements. Issues such as property rights (He et al., 2009; Cete and Konbul, 2016), land redevelopment (Gao et al., 2017), and the role of the state and market (Wu, 2016) in urban redevelopment in this cluster attract more attention from scholars.

The remaining clusters concentrate on regional characteristics and local context. These clusters contain extensive items such as “gentrification, politics, space, tourism, cultural heritage, district” and demonstrate notable themes, including gentrification (Lees, 2012), local political systems (Doshi, 2013), cultural heritage conservation (González Martínez, 2016; Liu Y. et al., 2022), and innovation (Ye et al., 2021) in urban regeneration.

4. Critical review

Based on the results of bibliometric analysis, a framework for critical review is proposed and shown in Figure 6. The critical review aims to clarify key barriers and challenges in urban regeneration and analyze interactions among different stakeholders.

FIGURE 6

Figure 6. The critical subsystems and relevant barriers among stakeholders in urban renewal.

4.1. Financial issues

Insufficient financial support and unbalanced benefits distribution are the two main obstacles to urban regeneration concerning economic issues. Urban renewal requires significant capital investment to cover costs for demolition, planning, construction, and renovation (He and Wu, 2007). Insufficient financial support could prevent regeneration projects from moving further (Fernandes et al., 2020). Financial source for urban regeneration largely relies on three core stakeholder groups, i.e., real estate developers, the local government, and residents (Kim et al., 2020).

The primary source of financial support for redevelopment and renewal initiatives, particularly those property-led redevelopment projects, comes from real estate developers (He and Wu, 2005, 2007; Yiannakou, 2020). Private developers benefit from the land rent gap and rising housing prices (Lan and Lee, 2021; Jiang et al., 2022). However, private developers are hesitant, especially for heritage conservation and rehabilitation projects, to participate in projects that cannot achieve commercial value enhancement after renovation (Shi et al., 2019). On the other hand, urban renewal projects with a protracted lifespan, a large capital demand, and a constraint on capital turnover would discourage real estate developers from engaging (Zhang W. et al., 2021).

Public investment by municipal government is not traditionally considered a viable option for urban regeneration, especially in brownfield redevelopment in western countries (Kotval-K, 2016). However, to upgrade the urban appearance and provide public goods and service in renovated neighborhoods, the local government are encouraged to invest in urban regeneration (Zuk et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2019). In China, where many regeneration projects are government-led, city-level or district-level governments may allocate a batch of special funds to support the renovation (Li et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2019). The grassroots government provides financial subsidies for community planners to motivate their participation (Wang et al., 2022). Despite direct funding, local government plays a crucial role in attracting developers and other stakeholders to invest in urban regeneration (Shin, 2009; Chu et al., 2020).

In addition, residents contribute funds to redevelopment to improve their living conditions, especially in “bottom-up” regeneration projects and community micro-regeneration (Li et al., 2019; Liu L. et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022; Wu and Xiong, 2022). However, residents' willingness to pay varies, making it difficult to reach a consensus collectively (Liang et al., 2022). Furthermore, regeneration financing largely depends on the capability of residents and the owners' committee, which is influenced by local economic, social, and cultural contexts (Pourzakarya and Bahramjerdi, 2021; Wang et al., 2021).

With respect to benefits distribution, communities always experience value appreciation following renewal, whereas irrational interest distribution could raise intense conflicts among stakeholders (Liu G. et al., 2020). A consensus benefit distribution plan in the decision-making stage of urban renewal is significant for the execution of these projects (Wu W. et al., 2020). An unbalanced distribution of benefits will hinder or even interrupt urban renewal projects (Wang et al., 2014). Issues such as land use rights, property rights, and commercial value are involved in urban regeneration and arouse widespread concern from stakeholders (Cete and Konbul, 2016; Jana et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020). Benefit distribution largely depends on regeneration mode and interactions between stakeholders. Due to numerous stakeholders in urban renewal (Mirzakhani et al., 2021), reaching an agreement on the distribution of benefits is time-consuming and challenging (Wang and Xiang, 2019; Cheng et al., 2021). Many cities are in a dilemma in choosing a suitable option from several urban regeneration modes to avoid severe conflicts in the distribution of benefits (Zhou et al., 2021).

The benefit coalition of local governments and private developers worsens benefits distribution (Hin and Xin, 2011). Local government can benefit from transferring land use rights and tax revenue (Li et al., 2014), while private developers obtain huge profits through increased commercial value (Yang and Chang, 2018). This coalition promotes property-led redevelopment (He and Wu, 2005; Lan and Lee, 2021), arousing criticism from the citizens. The local government and developers are criticized for making aggressive profits through public power and infringing upon the residents' interests (Li et al., 2019; Peric and Maruna, 2022). Moreover, this coalition also breeds potential bribery and corruption by local governments and private developers (He et al., 2009; Brown and Loosemore, 2015).

4.2. Demolition and compensation

Housing demolition is an essential byproduct of urban regeneration due to land redevelopment and urban space reuse (He, 2014; Talen, 2014; Yu et al., 2017). Old and dilapidated buildings without historical preservation value are demolished to enhance land use intensity, provide a better living environment, and create more vibrancy in old towns, urban villages and disused factory sites. Intricate relationships among stakeholders cause conflicts in the housing demolition process (Shih, 2010; Li et al., 2021).

Firstly, housing demolition conflicts arise from disputes over property rights (Cete and Konbul, 2016). The unequal power of stakeholders increases conflicts (He et al., 2009). The local government and developers have more decision-making rights than residents on housing demolition issues, and residents have limited bargaining power for their demands (Li et al., 2021). A coalition of local governments and developers is formed for significant profits from land and property appreciation in urban regeneration (Shin, 2009).

Secondly, the dominant role of developers in housing demolition intensifies conflicts between developers and residents. Compensation for housing demolition is one of the main costs for developers in urban renewal projects. Developers, oriented by economic interests, always hope to compensate residents at the lowest cost (Wu, 2004), arousing dissatisfaction and resistance from residents. The coordinating role of the local government in housing demolition also matters, but this might be absent from renewal practices. Ambiguous attitudes and lack of determination in compensation for demolition and relocation may escalate this conflict since the interests of residents are ignored (Hin and Xin, 2011).

Thirdly, residents resist housing demolition if their demand is not satisfied. Some residents build low-rise buildings temporarily to seek more compensation since the compensation is related to the construction area (Hin and Xin, 2011). Uncompromising nail households resist housing demolition and resettlement through intractable conflict and prolonged bargaining (Li et al., 2021), and pressures against housing demolition from the public and dissatisfaction with compensation from residents may force governments and developers to delay or even give up regeneration (Chu, 2008; Tan and Altrock, 2016).

Unsolved conflicts may indue violent demolition and eviction (Han et al., 2018), which is a global phenomenon (du Plessis, 2005; Liu and Xu, 2018), and reported in developed countries such as the United States (Sullivan, 2014; Mah, 2021; Ramiller, 2022), Italy (Olds et al., 2002) and developing countries such as China (He, 2012; Liu and Xu, 2018; Liu G. et al., 2020), South Africa (Wilhelm-Solomon, 2016), Bangladesh (Islam and Mungai, 2016), Nigeria (Roberts and Okanya, 2022) and Turkey (Cabannes and Goral, 2020).

4.3. Land redevelopment

Land redevelopment and reuse are essential for urban renewal, aiming at land type change, functional restructuring, industrial upgrading, and land-use efficiency improvement (Osman et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2020). Land redevelopment has been witnessed in various forms worldwide, e.g., brownfield redevelopment, neighborhood rehabilitation of residential land, and revitalization of the business district (Carmon, 1999; Dair and Williams, 2006; Hyra, 2012).

Land redevelopment encounters multiple challenges among various stakeholders. Specifically, these barriers involve, but are not limited to, restrictions on land ownership (Adams and Hutchison, 2000; Lin, 2015; Gallagher et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2020), the disagreement between stakeholders regarding objective and priority of renewal (Loures, 2015; Ahmad et al., 2019; He et al., 2019), fragmented land utilization (Louw, 2008; Wang et al., 2018; Gallagher et al., 2019), high transaction costs of institutional barriers that are rooted in development rights (Van der Krabben and Buitelaar, 2011; Lai and Tang, 2016; Li et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2019), bargaining disputes between original land user and land owner or between various land-use sectors (Adams and Hutchison, 2000; Gao et al., 2018; Perez-Soba et al., 2018; Liu G. et al., 2020), potential negative externalities for the local neighborhood (e.g., gentrification and pollution) (McCarthy, 2002; Stezar et al., 2014; Liu H. et al., 2022), land pooling and land supply issues (Schuetz, 2020; Jelili et al., 2021), and impediments to information, technology and operations (Ahmad et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Jelili et al., 2021; Akinyode, 2022; Han et al., 2022).

During the redevelopment process, these challenges are intertwined with various parties to achieve multiple goals, including economic value, social equality, and environmental preservation (Shin, 2008; Wu W. et al., 2020). Among conflicts between multi-stakeholders, issues on land property present more complicated since the various regional and national institutional contexts for land ownership, exchange, and development (Adams and Hutchison, 2000; Louw, 2008; Hao et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2019).

The change of land tenure is a critical conflict focus, characterized by the competition for the incremental value of land rent gap (Wu X. et al., 2020). The later an owner enters the renewal process, the greater the financial benefits and, consequently, the larger the compensation the individual gained (Erfani and Roe, 2020), which caused “nail-house resistance” in China (Li et al., 2021; Lin, 2022). In particular, complicated property ties in the urban village and other informal constructions make informality in land acquisition negotiations challenging (Hui and Bao, 2013; Jana et al., 2020). Moreover, inefficiencies often arise in the land assembly problem, most notably due to the conundrum of using the eminent domain principle for the public good (Menezes and Pitchford, 2004; Shen et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2020).

In addition, local housing, transportation, and public services are closely tied to land redevelopment, and inadequate public participation could lead to the failure of redevelopment initiatives (McCarthy, 2002; Hong et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2020; Wu W. et al., 2020). In summary, the challenges of land redevelopment focus on negotiations, competition and compromises among rights, interests, expectations, and preferences in the private and public sectors within the context of value generation and redistribution.

4.4. Planning subsystem

The planning subsystem in the urban renewal process emphasizes the appropriate usage of these urban areas and synchronization with overall urban development, which can be reflected in rigid planning control from the local authority, as well as project design from the decision-making of multi-stakeholder (Stenner et al., 2002; Yang, 2014; Hou et al., 2018; Figueiredo et al., 2022). In this sense, planning entails spatial and physical arrangements to balance the profit relationship and urban function pattern, supervised by the urban planning department and assessed by multi-methods (Radulescu et al., 2016; Bottero et al., 2017; Crescenzo et al., 2018). Specifically, to rebuild a more efficient urban space, plot ratio, building density, and investment intensity of land redevelopment should be rationally regulated in urban regeneration (Wang et al., 2021). However, planning and design may confront challenges due to multi-stakeholder games and conflicts, notably in the profitability-oriented planning practice (Hong et al., 2016).

The importance of multi-actor cooperation and public participation in regeneration planning has been underlined in prior research. Community engagement is an essential part of an ongoing process in planning strategies for urban renewal (Kim et al., 2020). The assessment of various urban planning scenarios that include multiple stakeholders can yield crucial insights and further advance the transition toward a sustainable urban environment (Bugl et al., 2012). Successful collaborative planning is generated by the well-coordinated stakeholder action network that considers dynamics, conflict management and participatory capacity between partnerships (Vandenbussche, 2018). However, a lack of openness, ignorance of voices from most people, and dominance by a few influential persons might contribute significantly to the stakeholders' poor perceptions regarding the planning process and regeneration outcomes (McKay and Tantoh, 2021; Huebscher, 2022).

Stakeholders in a collaborative planning process could approach the conflicting claims, representations, and discourse (Wang et al., 2015; Liu Y. et al., 2022) by identifying spatial and functional demands (vision, land use, and building design) that incorporate contributions of multiple actors (Hunt, 2006; Bozdag and Inam, 2021). However, the participation process is influenced by a variety of obstacles, such as the information and knowledge gap, the power relationship between stakeholders, and managerial, organizational, external, and technical issues (Dair and Williams, 2006; Jung et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2022). Additionally, the boundary and scope of regeneration planning are always ambiguous (Jiang et al., 2020). Thus, integrated, spatially explicit, collaborative frameworks and multi-methodology interventions require much time and cost (Ferretti, 2021).

Several concerns need to be addressed regarding participatory planning practices in urban renewal. The primary concern lies in value capture, evaluation and justification. The economic and non-economic benefits, such as the valorization of the cultural heritage and amelioration of the urban image, are highly emphasized in the planning process, whereas it is unclear how to assess these values (Bottero et al., 2017). Some approaches, such as stakeholders analysis, Delphi method, social network, and spatial analysis, are suggested to evaluate the renewal projects (Bugl et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Zhao and Zhou, 2022), but their effectiveness and efficiency are still controversial to varying degrees. Second, obsolete urban planning and restrictive zoning regulations may impede the planning process of urban renewal projects. For example, the Greek planning system and its provisions for the renewal of degraded urban areas have been regarded as an obstacle to implementing urban regeneration projects (Yiannakou, 2020). Although rapidly densifying cities routinely approve development plans that defy zoning permission, conditional on negotiations with developers for public benefits such as affordable social housing (Biggar, 2021), this could increase the bargaining rights of developers and introduce unintended risks like corruption (Wang X. et al., 2022). Third, the planning does not always work effectively due to the absence of multi-stakeholder collaboration and the difficulties in allocating the associated costs and benefits (Yiannakou, 2020; Zhou et al., 2021). A potential risk also exists when the bargaining power of developers, the local government and residents is not considered. Moreover, local governments and developers might collaborate closely for anticipated financial profits while disregarding residents' opinions (Cho, 2011; Chu et al., 2020).

4.5. Public participation

Participation of stakeholders across the whole process of urban regeneration contributes to the success of regeneration projects (Kim et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). Public participation in urban renewal has received increasing attention recently (Liu L. et al., 2020), and residents are becoming more influential (Zhang et al., 2020). Various approaches, including surveys, interviews, workshops and forums, are proposed and implemented in urban regeneration (Yang, 2014). However, heterogeneity exists across cities in different countries and regions (Zhang et al., 2020). Insufficient public participation derives from three main factors: low involvement capability, lack of access to deep participation, and negative attitudes toward participation (Li et al., 2020; Tort-Donada et al., 2020).

Involving residents in urban redevelopment has long been a challenge for urban planners (Fung, 2015; Erfani and Roe, 2020). Affected by the political system and local culture (Zhang W. et al., 2021), the residents' professional knowledge gaps could lead to heterogeneous participation abilities. In this case, negotiation between planners and developers is a prominent feature of urban renewal in western countries. Local actors in Toronto have more bargaining power due to their expertise in planning and wherewithal (Biggar, 2021). Comparing the public participation in urban regeneration between Beijing and Guangzhou, it is found that Guangzhou citizens are more capable than Beijing citizens (Zhang et al., 2020). Residents without professional knowledge always cannot participate in the decision-making and design stages.

Individuals, especially residents, have limited access to participate deeply in urban regeneration. They can only indirectly participate in the investigation or consultation of project planning instead of the decision-making process (Liu G. et al., 2020). Governments and companies usually arrange public participation to facilitate the process of urban regeneration rather than absorbing their demands and opinions, which is considered purely symbolic. It is just a tool for the government to speed up the process of economic-oriented development and avoid triggering social unrest (Xu and Lin, 2019).

Residents with limited awareness of public participation have negative attitudes toward participating in urban regeneration (Li et al., 2020). Superficial involvement, such as simple consultation, informal discussion, and passive participation modes, reduces residents' intentions to participate in redevelopment. As a result, residents have no voice in negotiations of interest distribution during the process of regeneration projects (Liu G. et al., 2020), and authentic voices and suggestions from the public cannot be heard (Jiang et al., 2020).

4.6. Policy support

Urban renewal initiatives require regulated support through multi-dimension policies, including financial policies, national standards, legal policies, land-use regulations, supervision, and environmental governance mechanisms (Lai et al., 2017; Ahmad et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Lan and Lee, 2021). Effective policy implementation could address economic-social-ecological issues, whereas the inappropriate policy instrument might generate new challenges that exacerbate conflict among critical stakeholders (Pan and Du, 2021). Overall, policy support in urban renewal presents several dilemmas, including the absence of associated renewal policies, lack of effectiveness and focus, neglect of social wellbeing, and the supply-demand mismatch between policymakers and renewal practices.

The absence of effective supporting policies is the root cause of unsustainable neighborhood renewal (Zhu et al., 2020). The effectiveness and orientation directly determine the outcomes of urban redevelopment projects. Defined objectives, balanced interests, and long-lasting effects on the economic, social, and environmental fronts demonstrate the effectiveness of policies. Therefore, unscientific and unreasonable policies may adversely impact renewal practices (Yuan et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). The sustainability of urban development may be affected, for instance, by ambiguous descriptions (Larsen and Hansen, 2008), abuse of “public use” (Werkneh, 2017), issues with vague property boundaries and defective law articles (Liu G. et al., 2020) and a lack of controls on premature demolition of existing heritage buildings (Shen et al., 2013) in an urban regeneration policy. Additionally, inappropriate design and operation might result in the failure of incentive measures when particular social contexts and stakeholders' behavioral characteristics are disregarded (Zhang J. et al., 2021). For instance, attracting and leveraging private investment into regeneration zones would be tough without taxes or development rights incentives (Adair et al., 2003; Shi et al., 2019).

Besides, urban renewal policies and planning tend to prioritize physical, economic, and social issues, yet limited attention is explicitly paid to health equality and spatial justice, and few focus on vulnerable groups (Mehdipanah et al., 2015; Onodugo et al., 2016; Eckenwiler, 2018). Public interest concerns must respond to wide-ranging demands, including place-making, public space, and community resilience. However, this section is largely ignored in urban renewal policy and implementation since it is a protracted, high-cost, and fragmented task (Wang et al., 2015; Zhuang et al., 2020; Boumali et al., 2022). In many “top-down” urban redevelopments, the exclusion of certain groups, such as the elderly, low-income, and less influential people, can be observed (Amore et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2020). The absence of dialogues between main interested parties could bring potential challenges, such as inconsistent supply and demand for renewal functions and impediment of bottom-up attempts to promote the renewal process (Li et al., 2018; Lazoroska and Palm, 2019; Wang et al., 2021).

Urban renewal policies in different regions or cities have stronger territoriality, shaped by local economic, social, and cultural factors. The highlighted elements of renewal policy are slightly differentiated for the various levels of government agencies, such as state and local municipality governments (Zhuang et al., 2019). The latter tends to develop more detailed policies to encourage renewal, but policy interventions are not always effective in reconciling interests (Yuan et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2022).

Urban policies are time-sensitive and spatially embedded. Thus, outdated policies could cause unfavorable effects (von Hoffman, 2000). Meanwhile, urban regeneration policy needs to be sufficiently fine-grained to account for variations in local demand (Adams et al., 2000), which could raise the risks of uncritical policy transfer from one locale to another (Adams and Hastings, 2001; Lai and Tang, 2016). Unexpectedly, a particular renewal policy solves a specific barrier and could create new ones (Hui et al., 2013). In this sense, undesirable effects of well-intentioned urban policy frameworks always occur (Donaldson et al., 2013). The incoherence, uncertainty, and inelasticity of policy instruments may intensify stakeholders' interest conflicts (Wang et al., 2018).

The support mechanism for policy implementation is essential to ensuring the policy falls to the ground. Urban renewal requires the pragmatic partnership of the local state with multiple market participants and flexible decision-making to overcome the constraints of regulatory institutions (Li et al., 2018). However, cross-sector or private-public cooperation is difficult to achieve if there is a lack of robust coordination mechanisms and intervention strategies that incorporate legal, strategic, and organizational elements (Pipa et al., 2017).

4.7. Heritage protection

After paying a high price in early extensive reconstruction, heritage preservation and fabric maintenance have attracted much attention from academics, practitioners, and public authorities nowadays (Scarpaci, 2000; Guo P. et al., 2021; Liu Y. et al., 2022).

First, the evaluation and recognition of cultural heritage and historic buildings may not adequately match the diverse requirements of economic-social-environmental elements in current urban development (Phillips and Stein, 2013; Yung et al., 2017). This aspect is reflected in the determination of preservation priority (Wang et al., 2020) or authenticity criteria (Martinez, 2017; Li and Qu, 2022), fragmented conservation of historic districts (Xia et al., 2022), categorization protection system, and the emphasis on adaptive reuse and extensive value for the community (Jiang et al., 2020).

Second, repurposing and revitalizing cultural heritage buildings could facilitate the reservation. Nevertheless, the fact is that some historical city areas are now physically and functionally deficient and unable to meet modern demands on social-economic aspects from residents and societies (Conejos et al., 2016). This further raises more controversy about urban fabrics, especially for residents who dwell in historical buildings with poor environments (Shi et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2020). Additionally, decision-makers lack the resources necessary to carry out these initiatives and are unaware of the numerous advantages of the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings (Foster, 2020). To preserve the heritage without inducing social decay (Mirzakhani et al., 2021), it is unclear how to engage local culture and character in this adaptive use process (Ashley et al., 2015).

Third, heritage revitalization projects could be delayed due to uncertain property rights of historical buildings (Guo N. et al., 2021) and complex interest contradictions over the “bundle of rights,” including ownership, use rights, and development rights (Hou et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020). Conflicts in urban heritage result from stakeholders' diverse perceptions, interests, and expectations (Liu Y. et al., 2022). For starters, it is intractable to handle the negotiation and compromise of stakeholders over the conservation of heritage buildings and the introduction of new buildings (Hunt, 2006). For another, the participatory effectiveness of multi-stakeholders in the heritage renaissance is affected by power disparity and imbalanced cooperation mechanisms (Erfani and Roe, 2020) due to the absence of a codified duty description (Mirzakhani et al., 2021).

Lastly, the absence of sufficient and extensive civil participation could intensify the disagreement. Practically, the opinions of experts and planners are intensely weighted. In contrast, the preservation movement does not give voice to the community's and public's views in identifying a sense of place and locality, and this could become a possible concern for future functional utilization (Yuen, 2006; Zhong and Leung, 2019; Jiang et al., 2020). In this case, historical conservation practices are condemned for their great contribution to the gentrification process worldwide, such as in New York, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong (Yung et al., 2017), and Shanghai (Yung et al., 2014). Inevitably, gentrification often generates damaging impacts. However, examples from Tokyo, Bangkok and Singapore demonstrate a pregentrification capable of creatively reusing and recycling existing stocks and inheritances, contributing positively to sustainable urban regeneration (Boontharm, 2012).

4.8. Social inequality

Urban renewal also raises a series of social issues in practice, such as gentrification and inequality, although it promotes socioeconomic development, the aesthetic appearance of urban landscapes, and local governance (He et al., 2009; Wu W. et al., 2020).

Inequality among residents, rural migrants, tenants, and other marginal stakeholders occurs in urban renewal. High-speed urbanization has witnessed many rural migrants flow into cities, forming a large number of informal housing, such as urban villages (Liu and Wong, 2018; Liu et al., 2018; Dai et al., 2023). Urban villages and shantytowns mitigate the problem of affordable housing for migrants (Lin et al., 2011; Cete and Konbul, 2016). However, the interests of these marginal stakeholders are ignored in the regeneration of urban villages and informal housing, and the demolition and redevelopment approach intensifies socio-spatial exclusion and individual inequality (He et al., 2009; Hui et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2018). Rural migrants are absent from decision-making in redevelopment (Liu et al., 2018), resulting in unbalanced interest distribution and enormous economic inequality between displaced residents and those who stayed (Xian and Gu, 2020). As a result, they have to seek affordable housing in more remote areas (Liu and Wong, 2018). On the other hand, tenants and surrounding small traders also do not benefit from land and property appreciation (Jiang et al., 2020) and face the loss of a sense of place and belonging given that they are excluded from the improved public service, infrastructures, and amenities (Xian and Gu, 2020).

Spatial inequality between renewal areas and non-renewal areas causes uneven development. Residents in renovated neighborhoods have more access to public goods and services and live in a more comfortable environment compared to residents in communities without regeneration plans. This gap lowers the sense of social wellbeing of some residents. Moreover, housing appreciation varies among renovated neighborhoods, increasing housing wealth gaps. Further, property-led renewal and transferable development rights may change the social and spatial pattern of the classical rent gap and cause uneven development (Yang and Chang, 2018; Lan and Lee, 2021).

Despite of inequality, gentrification is another concern (Smith, 2002). The relationship between urban regeneration and gentrification has been intensively investigated in different countries (He, 2012; Lees, 2012; Kovács et al., 2013; Wu, 2016; Liu and Wong, 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Gentrification refers to the process of a lower-income residence changing to a middle-class neighborhood (Wu, 2016), including changes in residential use, displacement and dispossession (Loretta et al., 2015), and changes in temporality and geographical contexts (Lees, 2012). Gentrification happens not only in lower-income neighborhoods in the inner city, but also in middle-income or higher-income neighborhoods in urban areas, suburban neighborhoods, and even rural areas (Lees, 2003; Nelson et al., 2010; Lorenzen, 2021).

Urban renewal programs resulting in gentrification bring out both desirable impacts and undesirable consequences. Gentrification reshapes urban fabric (Uzun, 2003), improves the physical renovation of housing and infrastructures, provides an upgraded physical environment, and enhances service and maintenance (Zuk et al., 2018). However, urban regeneration and gentrification also lead to negative effects of surging housing prices (Kauko, 2009; Cho et al., 2020), enclosure, dispossession (Doshi, 2013), displacement (Wyly et al., 2010; Doshi, 2013; Valli, 2015) and social antagonism (Yang and Chang, 2018). The health of low-income residents is also negatively affected (Mehdipanah et al., 2018).

Gentrification varies in different cities and is closely related to local contexts, built environment characteristics, and accompanying policies. In Guangzhou, dramatic changes have occurred in the urban landscape and socio-spatial patterns of the central city through two waves of gentrification since the late 1980s (He, 2012). In Hong Kong, the transit-oriented development mode contributes to gentrification and unequal access to public goods and services, and urban regeneration fails to solve this problem (Wang S. et al., 2022). In Mumbai, urban redevelopment is a process of accumulation by displacement rather than gentrification because gender and ethnoreligious relations are also involved besides class displacement (Doshi, 2013). Misunderstandings and disagreements about urban regeneration and gentrification also exist. Some scholars argue that urban redevelopment dominated by the government is not gentrification but the formalization of informal settlements in Chinese cities, since no middle-class newcomers replace the existing residents (Wu, 2016).

5. Discussion

Despite renewal modes and practical approaches varying across different countries, regions, and cities, some consensus and efforts have been achieved in urban renewal fields by academics, practitioners, and public authorities (Zheng et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021). Stakeholder management is strongly linked to the success of urban renewal projects (Wang et al., 2021), embodied in the entire lifecycle of renewal activities. Therefore, it is crucial to identify and overcome the critical barriers preventing the achievement of renewal goals from the stakeholder viewpoint. In the critical review section, this study discussed complicated interactions and competing interests among stakeholders throughout several subsystems, including financial issues, property transfer, land redevelopment, planning, public engagement, policy support, heritage protection, and social inequality. These renewal dilemmas could result from unclear property rights, the absence of numerous parties, rigid urban zoning controls, inappropriate policy incentives, and speculative behaviors of critical stakeholders.

Regarding strategies to overcome relevant challenges, effective public participation and multi-dimensional collaboration have been emphasized in prior studies. However, few researchers have documented stakeholder management from a holistic perspective. In light of the analysis above, aligning the interests of the public and private sectors within a given unified framework is the key to addressing stakeholder hurdles. Hence, corresponding implications are elaborated from the viewpoints of value creation, collaborative governance, and mutual benefit to illustrate the stakeholder's response to renewal challenges. The linkage between eight critical challenges and three key factors for the solution is presented in Figure 7, and relevant future research directions are also provided.

FIGURE 7

Figure 7. Critical barriers, solution factors, and future research direction.

5.1. Value creation by stakeholders

Capital, power and the people-led orientation co-dominate the physical, social and cultural forms in urban renewal domains. Value creation emphasizes value capture and the restructuring of spatial, property and social activities. However, limited studies focus on value creation in the urban renewal of different contexts and regions. Thus, future research could investigate the nature and pathway of value-creation behaviors across various stakeholders in government-led or private-led regeneration projects. Different renewal categories are endowed with differentiated values to advance economic, social, and environmental development (Koetter et al., 2021). To provide stakeholders with rational anticipation, independent, professional consulting agencies should thoroughly evaluate the value of urban redevelopment, urban rehabilitation, and heritage preservation. Moreover, systematic assessment approaches and tools are strongly needed to assist decision-making on renewal plans (Wang et al., 2014). Specifically, value creation is reflected in project design, planning, land reuse, heritage revival, and other sub-systems throughout urban renewal.

The local authorities should implement policy incentives and supervision mechanisms to provide an appropriate supporting environment for the urban renewal field. On the one hand, governments avoid excessive administrative interference since market-led renewal patterns are widely accepted. Public agencies can implement elastic planning and preferential policies to encourage enterprises to engage in renewal projects. On the other hand, the government must highlight the public value and vulnerable aspects, such as public space, environmental issues, heritage revitalization, and social equity. Laws and other formal institutional arrangements should be developed to support heritage preservation. For some low-benefit projects that lack appeal to private investors, the government could establish public-private partnerships for co-construction, and public financial support could leverage the substantial capital from other social sectors.

The developer enterprises are the most active practitioners of urban renewal and the main body of value creation. The potential land rent gap may draw financial and social resources from both the public and private sectors, and orderly competition for stock land property or other assets can maximize the use of deteriorating urban areas and improve land utilization efficiency. Developers play an irreplaceable role in capturing economic value attributed to their flexible business strategies and keen market insights. Furthermore, the potential social and cultural values could increase economic profits through long-term effects. The property-led and profit-driven urban redevelopment should be transferred into sustainable objectives that increase economic profit, social wellbeing, and environmental friendliness, e.g., the effect of urban renewal on affordable rental housing and energy savings (Wang et al., 2021).

Residents' contributions to value creation are largely overlooked. Limited by participation capacity and degree, residents' opinions could not be seriously considered in the planning, design, or decision-making processes. Consequently, residents' absence of public participation might result in a mismatch between supply and demand, as they are the final users and beneficiaries. Thus, other stakeholders should consider residents' involvement throughout the renewal process to prevent social issues and create more value. Additionally, residents can directly negotiate with enterprises to improve housing quality and the community environment through small-scale renewal activities, such as neighborhood renovation. These bottom-up renewals can take advantage of residents' creativity and match the demand of end users. Moreover, focusing on marginalized parties might positively impact value creation in certain areas, like the resettlement of tenants and media advocacy for heritage preservation.

Given the above analysis, future research could emphasize several aspects. First, future research could develop quantitative economic-social-environmental assessments and tools to evaluate value and benefits comprehensively. Second, a systematic study should investigate the pathway to the value creation of multi-stakeholders in projects of different scales and categories, such as megaprojects, industrial land redevelopment, neighborhood rehabilitation, and heritage preservation. Third, due to various economic, social, and cultural backgrounds worldwide, measurement and comparative studies on value reconstruction in urban regeneration could be important for future research.

5.2. Collaborative governance of stakeholders

Value generation toward sustainable urban renewal depends on the collaborative actions of multiple stakeholders. Previous studies have indicated the necessity of the stakeholders' collaboration and relevant barriers. Nevertheless, the renewal practice is perplexed by the disparities in participation ability and influencing power among diverse stakeholder groups. Thus, future research can focus on the issue of how to improve participation competency and effectiveness. The priority of cooperation is the consistency of renewal targets, yet multiple stakeholders must compromise to achieve an agreement due to limited resources and competing interests. In this case, it is essential to clarify each participant's rights, responsibilities, and benefits.

The government could accelerate its transition from the economic growth regime to the coordinated development of multiple dimensions in urban areas. For some regions with state-centralized power, it would be optional to launch administrative deconcentration to motivate investment in urban revitalization. Moreover, the information disclosure mechanism can be established with government support to include more stakeholders. The government can regulate, supervise, and coordinate the interests of several parties (Wang et al., 2021). Notably, the power boundary should be obeyed to avoid abuse and the violation of both private and public property. Moreover, the internal coordination between government agencies and public institutions requires more attention to lower institutional costs.

Developers are practical implementers of land redevelopment, historical revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and new industry supply in urban renewals. Renewal effectiveness is greatly influenced by coordination with local authorities and residents, and regeneration partnerships are the best practice. Profit-driven capital is concerned about the costs and benefits, and developers can negotiate with the government for additional potential construction areas. Thus, incentive policy and mechanism design are needed to encourage developers to perform in public facilities or provide public goods and services. In addition, incorporating residents and the public into planning, design and decision-making could promote the developers' long-term effects on revenue and social reputation. This procedure requires a dispute coordination scheme and balanced benefit distribution among critical stakeholders.

Regarding public engagement in urban regeneration, three aspects need to be addressed. First, it should be admitted by the law and other formal regulations, which require institutional support. Some stakeholders, such as the migrated population, are overlooked and excluded from engagement, making it challenging to convey their thoughts throughout the renewal decision-making process. Hence, future research could investigate the engagement of non-critical stakeholders and their corresponding impacts. Second, the approach or pathway and degree of participation should be clarified and enhanced, respectively. Substantial and effective public participation should be considered in the planning and interest distribution to accommodate residents' reasonable demands.

The community is the appropriate scale for agglomerating residents in the renewal activities, and the NGOs are also effective supplements. Notably, focusing on the voices and suggestions of less influential people can ensure social justice. The significance of residents' participation in renewal affairs should be emphasized and implemented by governments and developers. Third, the public's capacity to participate in the renewal needs to be cultivated. To address this, the public should have access to professional knowledge via popularization and co-sharing on urban renewal.

Accordingly, future research could highlight the following directions. First, future research could focus on multi-stakeholder cooperation and conflict networks from different regeneration patterns, such as government-led, market-oriented, private-led, and public-private partnerships. Second, another important topic is to investigate formal and informal cooperation in the lifecycle of the urban regeneration process, including planning, implementation, and long-term operation. Third, more research could discuss the effectiveness of public participation and the corresponding effect on other stakeholders. For example, whether public participation increases or decreases the transaction cost of the property transfer.

5.3. Mutual benefits among stakeholders

Despite varied institutional backgrounds and urban development characters globally, the key to urban renewal is the coordination of interest linkages among multi-stakeholders. Complicated interest conflicts in urban renewal focus on the property transfers of land and housing, bargaining over compensation, and gaming of public and private interests. The premise of value sharing is to clarify legitimate rational rights and corresponding boundaries. Urban renewal could, either explicitly or implicitly, benefit various stakeholders based on value creation. Moreover, the attainment of benefits is related to bargaining power and degrees of engagement. Thus, it is vital to establish a coordinating mechanism and negotiating platform to handle disagreement over competing interests. Furthermore, risk assessment for renewal could identify potential social issues and establish partnerships for risk undertaking.

The governments prioritize broad interests, including economic benefits, social equality, collective good, and other concerns with urban sustainability. The fiscal revenue generated from land exploitation and other operational activities could be further applied to public goods and services. However, the government could be criticized for its overwhelming economic orientation and ignorance of vulnerable groups. As a result, the government should balance its interests across different dimensions and focus on the long-term effects of urban renewal. For instance, urban renewal activities could provide more employment opportunities and improve the urban environment. On behalf of public interests, the public authorities need to provide more convenience for public participation in the decision-making process to reduce social injustice. Furthermore, governments can temporarily lay aside their narrow interests to include more stakeholders and increase societal wellbeing.

The developer firms and other private sectors can achieve investment revenue through construction, property transactions, and the operation of land, housing, and other assets. Appropriate incentives could encourage the private sector to play a beneficial role in economic, environmental, and social aspects. Meanwhile, developers might experience potential risks, including citizens' resistance to leaving their homeownership, loan defaults induced by project delays, and real estate market uncertainty. These require the government's policy support and partnership coordination with residents. Unpredictably, the renewal developers could conduct disorderly demolition and reconstruction of buildings, which would go against the sustainable goals of urban renewal. It might implement an anti-driving mechanism to allocate market resources and equilibrate private and public interests, such as limiting access to the renewal market for offending enterprises.

Formerly-owned inhabitants are qualified to share economic interests and social wellbeing. Comparatively, residents are placed in a vulnerable position when negotiating with the government or developers. The community could bridge the consultation gap between residents and developers with the assistance of the government. Moreover, information disclosure in urban renewal affairs could help residents understand renewal status and establish rational and stable revenue expectations. For overbidding and speculated people who obstruct renewal and harm public interests, effective coordination procedures are required via the efforts of most residents. Undoubtedly, the public interest should be confirmed through a legislated process to avoid the invasion of private property. Additionally, the general public could benefit from an excellent residential and living environment through the renewal activities. Therefore, their support and supervision are highlighted to promote urban redevelopment.

Future research on stakeholder's mutual benefits of urban regeneration could be underlined in the following areas: (1) distribution of increment interest among critical stakeholders; (2) policy tools to balance public interest and private interest; (3) approaches to participating in interest coordination for marginal stakeholders (e.g., tenants and migrated population); and (4) complicated games between cooperative coalitions, such as government vs. enterprise plus residents, and residents vs. government plus enterprises. Meanwhile, uncovering the benefit sharing and overflow effects across different projects in particular cities would be an interesting direction.

6. Conclusion

Urban regeneration is a complicated system aiming to revitalize and reconstruct urban economic, social, environmental, and spatial aspects. Various stakeholders with different interests are involved in urban regeneration, resulting in complicated decision-making and implementation. This study systematically reviews existing literature on urban regeneration from the stakeholder perspective, and further identifies significant obstacles and critical challenges in urban regeneration. A total of 347 journal articles are selected for bibliometric analysis. The critical review is conducted from eight aspects, i.e., financial issues, demolition and compensation, land redevelopment, planning, public participation, heritage preservation, social externalities, and policy support in urban regeneration.

The discussion section proposes a framework of value creation, collaborative governance, and mutual benefits to understand and respond to existing challenges in urban regeneration. To achieve value creation, the local government is encouraged to create a supportive environment through incentive policies and regulatory systems and promote the establishment of public-private partnerships to attract and leverage social investment. Developers contribute to enhancing the commercial value of regeneration projects in the long run with flexible business models and keen market insights. Public participation should be considered throughout the life cycle of renewal projects to tap into residents' creativity and overcome a mismatch between supply and demand. Identifying rights, responsibilities, and benefits among stakeholders is a prerequisite to collaborative governance. Establishing an information disclosure platform and mechanism is conducive to more efficient stakeholder communication and cooperation. More importantly, the legality and formality of public participation need to be recognized. It is more likely to achieve mutual benefits by establishing coordination mechanisms and negotiation platforms to mitigate stakeholder conflicts. The local government plays an essential role in focusing on the overall benefits of different aspects rather than fiscal revenue.

Limitations and future research directions need to be mentioned. A few limitations remain in this study. Firstly, this study only includes journal articles in the WOS database, which may miss some articles in other databases or professional books. Secondly, a few key barriers and challenges in urban regeneration are mentioned since it is impossible to cover all challenges. Based on current research, suggestions for future study directions are provided. First, systematic assessments of urban renewal at the city and community levels are needed to support decision-making on renewal projects with cutting-edge approaches and tools. Second, the potential social and cultural values of renewal projects need attention from academia and practitioners to achieve long-term economic profits. Third, scholars are encouraged to investigate the factors affecting public participation capability and relevant approaches to improving effective participation in future studies. It is also vital to promote broad participation by non-governmental organizations and motivate interactions with residents. Furthermore, the heterogeneous impacts of various incentive policies on developers' involvement in urban regeneration should be investigated with advanced empirical methods. This study provides scholars with a roadmap for the main challenges in urban regeneration and proposes strategies to tackle these issues to achieve sustainable urban renewal.

Author contributions

ZL contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing original draft, and writing-review and editing. ML contributed to conceptualization, formal analysis, writing original draft, and writing-review and editing.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers, whose insightful comments and helpful suggestions significantly contributed to improving this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Adair, A., Berry, J., and McGreal, S. (2003). Financing property's contribution to regeneration. Urban Stud. 40, 1065–1080. doi: 10.1080/0042098032000074326

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, D., Disberry, A., Hutchison, N., and Munjoma, T. (2000). Mind the gap? Taxes, subsidies and the behaviour of brownfield owners. Land Use Policy 17, 135–145. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00003-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, D., and Hastings, E. M. (2001). Urban renewal in Hong Kong: transition from development corporation to renewal authority. Land Use Policy 18, 245–258. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00019-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, D., and Hutchison, N. (2000). The urban task force report: reviewing land ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment. Reg. Stud. 34, 777–782. doi: 10.1080/00343400050192865

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmad, N., Zhu, Y., Shafait, Z., Sahibzada, U. F., and Waheed, A. (2019). Critical barriers to brownfield redevelopment in developing countries: the case of Pakistan. J. Clean Prod. 212, 1193–1209. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.061

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmad, N., Zhu, Y., Shao, J., and Lin, H. (2020). Stakeholders' perspective on strategies to promote contaminated site remediation and brownfield redevelopment in developing countries: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 14614–14633. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-07990-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akinyode, B. F. (2022). A critical review of land pooling technique for sustainable urban renewal in developing countries. Geo J. 87, 3265–3275. doi: 10.1007/s10708-021-10430-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ameen, R., and Mourshed, M. (2017). Urban environmental challenges in developing countries-a stakeholder perspective. Habitat Int. 64, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amore, A., Hall, C. M., and Jenkins, J. (2017). They never said “come here and let's talk about it': exclusion and non-decision-making in the rebuild of Christchurch, New Zealand. Local Econ. 32, 617–639. doi: 10.1177/0269094217734326

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 11, 959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashley, K. S., Osmani, M., Emmitt, S., Mallinson, M., and Mallinson, H. (2015). Assessing stakeholders' perspectives towards the conservation of the built heritage of Suakin, Sudan. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 21, 674–697. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2014.985696

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Azam, A., Ahmed, A., Wang, H., Wang, Y., and Zhang, Z. (2021). Knowledge structure and research progress in wind power generation (WPG) from 2005 to 2020 using CiteSpace based scientometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 295, 126496. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126496

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biggar, J. (2021). Approaching negotiations in urban redevelopment projects: a multiple case analysis of stakeholder involvement in community benefit agreements. Plan. Theory Pract. 22, 725–746. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2021.1972129

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boontharm, D. (2012). “The idea of creative reuse urbanism - the roles of local creativities in culturally sustainable place-making: Tokyo, Bangkok, Singapore,” in Future Asian Space : Projecting the Urban Space of New East Asia, eds E. Viray, D. Boontharm, and L. Hee (Singapore: NUS Press), 73–87. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1qv2mg.9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bottero, M., Mondini, G., and Datola, G. (2017). Decision-making tools for urban regeneration processes: from stakeholders analysis to stated preference methods. Tema-J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 10, 193–212. doi: 10.6092/1970-9870/5163

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boumali, B.-E., Tamine, R., Lalmi, A., and Elafri, N. (2022). Public spaces, a challenge for urban renewal: case of Bardo Urban Park Project. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 16, 225–238. doi: 10.47743/pesd2022161016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bozdag, A., and Inam, S. (2021). Collaborative land use planning in urban renewal. J. Urban Reg. Anal. 13, 323–342. doi: 10.37043/JURA.2021.13.2.7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brown, J., and Loosemore, M. (2015). Behavioural factors influencing corrupt action in the Australian construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 22, 372–389. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2015-0034

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bugl, R., Stauffacher, M., Kriese, U., Pollheimer, D., and Scholz, R. (2012). Identifying stakeholders' views on sustainable urban transition: desirability, utility and probability assessments of scenarios. Eur. Plan. Stud. 20, 1667–1687. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.713332

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cabannes, Y., and Goral, O. S. (2020). Land disputes on the outskirts of Istanbul: a unique case of legalization amidst demolitions and forced evictions. Environ. Urban. 32, 69–88. doi: 10.1177/0956247819893187

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carmon, N. (1999). Three generations of urban renewal policies: analysis and policy implications. Geoforum 30, 145–158. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00012-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cete, M., and Konbul, Y. (2016). Property rights in urban regeneration projects in Turkey. Arab J Geosci 9, 459. doi: 10.1007/s12517-016-2496-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheng, H., Lai, Y., and De Tong (2021). Decoding the decision-making in the new wave of urban redevelopment in China: a case study of a bottom-up industrial land redevelopment in Shenzhen. Land Use Policy 111, 105774. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105774

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cho, C.-J. (2011). An analysis of the housing redevelopment process in korea through the lens of the transaction cost framework. Urban Stud. 48, 1477–1501. doi: 10.1177/0042098010375324

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cho, G.-H., Kim, J. H., and Lee, G. (2020). Announcement effects of urban regeneration plans on residential property values: evidence from Ulsan, Korea. Cities 97, 102570. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102570

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chu, C. (2008). The myths and politics of housing in Hong Kong: the controversy over the demolition of the Hunghom Estate. Habitat Int. 32, 375–383. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chu, X., Shi, Z., Yang, L., and Guo, S. (2020). Evolutionary game analysis on improving collaboration in sustainable urban regeneration: a multiple-stakeholder perspective. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 146, 04020046. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000630

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Conejos, S., Langston, C., Chan, E. H. W., and Chew, M. Y. L. (2016). Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Build. Res. Informat. 44, 507–519. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1156951

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Crescenzo, M., Bottero, M., Berta, M., and Ferretti, V. (2018). “Governance and urban development processes: evaluating the influence of stakeholders through a multi-criteria approach-the case study of trieste,” in Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, Sspcr 2017, eds A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, P. Laconte, and S. Costa (New York, NY: Springer), 503–522. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_34

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dai, Y., Tong, D., and Chu, J. (2023). Involuntary resettlement outcomes following the regeneration of informal communities: the case of Baishizhou urbanizing village in Shenzhen, China. Popul. Space Place 29, e05. doi: 10.1002/psp.2605

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dair, C. M., and Williams, K. (2006). Sustainable land reuse: the influence of different stakeholders in achieving sustainable brownfield developments in England. Environ. Plan. A 38, 1345–1366. doi: 10.1068/a37370

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Donaldson, R., Kotze, N., Visser, G., Park, J. H., Wally, N., Zen, J., et al. (2013). An uneasy match: neoliberalism, gentrification and heritage conservation in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town, South Africa. Urban Forum 24, 173–188. doi: 10.1007/s12132-012-9182-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Doshi, S. (2013). The politics of the evicted: redevelopment, subjectivity, and difference in Mumbai's Slum Frontier. Antipode 45, 844–865. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01023.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

du Plessis, J. (2005). The growing problem of forced evictions and the crucial importance of community-based, locally appropriate alternatives. Environ. Urban. 17, 123–134. doi: 10.1177/095624780501700108

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eckenwiler, L. (2018). Displacement and solidarity: an ethic of place-making. Bioethics 32, 562–568. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12538

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Erfani, G., and Roe, M. (2020). Institutional stakeholder participation in urban redevelopment in Tehran: an evaluation of decisions and actions. Land Use Policy 91, 104367. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104367

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fernandes, A., de Sousa, J. F., Costa, J. P., and Neves, B. (2020). Mapping stakeholder perception on the challenges of brownfield sites' redevelopment in waterfronts: the Tagus Estuary. Eur. Plan. Stud. 28, 2447–2464. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2020.1722985

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferretti, V. (2021). Framing territorial regeneration decisions: purpose, perspective and scope. Land Use Policy 102, 105279. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105279

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Figueiredo, Y. D. D. S., Prim, M. A., and Dandolini, G. A. (2022). Urban regeneration in the light of social innovation: a systematic integrative literature review. Land Use Policy 113, 105873. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105873

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Foster, G. (2020). Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings to reduce environmental impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 152, 104507. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104507

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Adm. Rev. 75, 513–522. doi: 10.1111/puar.12361

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gallagher, R., Liu, Y., and Sigler, T. (2019). Parcel amalgamation as a mechanism for achieving urban consolidation through densification: the fixity of property boundaries over time. Land Use Policy 89, 104239. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104239

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, J., Chen, W., and Liu, Y. (2018). Spatial restructuring and the logic of industrial land redevelopment in urban China: II. A case study of the redevelopment of a local state-owned enterprise in Nanjing. Land Use Policy 72, 372–380. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, J., Chen, W., and Yuan, F. (2017). Spatial restructuring and the logic of industrial land redevelopment in urban China: I. Theoretical considerations. Land Use Policy 68, 604–613. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

González Martínez, P. (2016). Authenticity as a challenge in the transformation of Beijing's urban heritage: the commercial gentrification of the Guozijian historic area. Cities 59, 48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guo, N., Chan, E. H. W., and Yung, E. H. K. (2021). alternative governance model for historical building conservation in China: from property rights perspective. Sustainability 13, 203. doi: 10.3390/su13010203

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guo, P., Li, Q., Guo, H., and Li, H. (2021). Quantifying the core driving force for the sustainable redevelopment of industrial heritage: implications for urban renewal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 48097–48111. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14054-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Han, B., Jin, X., Wang, J., Yin, Y., Liu, C., Sun, R., et al. (2022). Identifying inefficient urban land redevelopment potential for evidence-based decision making in China. Habitat Int. 128, 102661. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102661

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Han, H., Shu, X., and Ye, X. (2018). Conflicts and regional culture: the general features and cultural background of illegitimate housing demolition in China. Habitat Int. 75, 67–77. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.04.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hao, P., Hooimeijer, P., Sliuzas, R., and Geertman, S. (2013). What drives the spatial development of urban villages in China? Urban Stud. 50, 3394–3411. doi: 10.1177/0042098013484534

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, F., Wu, W., Zhuang, T., and Yi, Y. (2019). Exploring the diverse expectations of stakeholders in industrial land redevelopment projects in china: the case of Shanghai. Sustainability 11, 4744. doi: 10.3390/su11174744

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, S. (2012). Two waves of gentrification and emerging rights issues in Guangzhou, China. Environ. Plan. A 44, 2817–2833. doi: 10.1068/a44254

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, S., Liu, Y., Webster, C., and Wu, F. (2009). Property rights redistribution, entitlement failure and the impoverishment of landless farmers in China. Urban Stud. 46, 1925–1949. doi: 10.1177/0042098009106015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, S., and Wu, F. (2005). Property-led redevelopment in post-reform china: a case study of xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. J. Urban Aff. 27, 1–23. doi: 10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00222.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, S., and Wu, F. (2007). Socio-spatial impacts of property-led redevelopment on China's urban neighbourhoods. Cities 24, 194–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2006.12.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, X. (2014). Maintaining stability by law: protest-supported housing demolition litigation and social change in China. Law Soc. Inq. 39, 849–873. doi: 10.1111/lsi.12064

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hin, L. L., and Xin, L. (2011). Redevelopment of urban villages in Shenzhen, China – an analysis of power relations and urban coalitions. Habitat Int. 35, 426–434. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.12.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hong, S., Shin, E., and Kim, S. (2016). Effects of frequently overriding regulations on urban renewal in seoul: a warning. J. Urban Plan. Dev 142. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000311

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hou, J., Chan, E. H. W., and Li, L. H. (2018). Transfer of development rights as an institutional innovation to address issues of property rights. J. Hous. Built Environ. 33, 465–479. doi: 10.1007/s10901-018-9613-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hu, Y., Lu, B., and Wu, J. (2019). Value capture in industrial land renewal under the public leasehold system: a policy comparison in China. Land Use Policy 84, 59–69. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.038

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Huebscher, M. (2022). Planning behind closed doors: unlocking large-scale urban development projects using the stakeholder approach on tenerife, Spain. Land 11, 390. doi: 10.3390/land11030390

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hui, E. C. M., and Bao, H. (2013). The logic behind conflicts in land acquisitions in contemporary China: a framework based upon game theory. Land Use Policy 30, 373–380. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hui, E. C. M., Bao, H. J., and Zhang, X. L. (2013). The policy and praxis of compensation for land expropriations in China: an appraisal from the perspective of social exclusion. Land Use Policy 32, 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.11.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hunt, J. G. (2006). “Forms of participation in urban redevelopment projects - the differing roles of public and stakeholder contributions to design decision making processes,” in Innovations in Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, eds J. P. van Leeuwen, and H. J. P. Timmermans (Heidelberg: Springer Netherlands), 375–390. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5060-2_24

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hyra, D. S. (2012). Conceptualizing the new urban renewal: comparing the past to the present. Urban Aff. Rev. 48, 498–527. doi: 10.1177/1078087411434905

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Islam, M. R., and Mungai, N. W. (2016). Forced eviction in Bangladesh: a human rights issue. Int. Soc. Work 59, 494–507. doi: 10.1177/0020872815580046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jana, A., Basu, R., and Mukherjee, C. (2020). A game theoretic approach to optimize multi-stakeholder utilities for land acquisition negotiations with informality. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 69, 100717. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2019.06.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jelili, M. O., Akinyode, B. F., and Ogunleti, A. (2021). Land pooling and urban renewal in lagos state: a narrative inquiry into Isale Gangan Project. Urban Forum 32, 49–66. doi: 10.1007/s12132-020-09405-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jiang, L., Lai, Y., Chen, K., and Tang, X. (2022). What drives urban village redevelopment in China? A survey of literature based on web of science core collection database. Land 11, 525. doi: 10.3390/land11040525

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jiang, Y., Mohabir, N., Ma, R., Wu, L., and Chen, M. (2020). Whose village? Stakeholder interests in the urban renewal of Hubei old village in Shenzhen. Land Use Policy 91, 104411. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104411

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jones, P., and Evans, J. (2013). Urban Regeneration in the UK: Boom, Bust and Recovery. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781473915015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jung, T. H., Lee, J., Yap, M. H. T., and Ineson, E. M. (2015). The role of stakeholder collaboration in culture-led urban regeneration: a case study of the Gwangju project, Korea. Cities 44, 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.12.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kauko, T. (2009). Policy impact and house price development at the neighbourhood-levela comparison of four urban regeneration areas using the concept of artificial value creation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 17, 85–107. doi: 10.1080/09654310802513963

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, G., Newman, G., and Jiang, B. (2020). Urban regeneration: community engagement process for vacant land in declining cities. Cities 102, 102730. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102730

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koetter, T., Sikder, S. K., and Weiss, D. (2021). The cooperative urban land development model in Germany-an effective instrument to support affordable housing. Land Use Policy 107, 105481. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105481

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kotval-K, Z. (2016). Brownfield redevelopment: why public investments can pay off. Econ. Dev. Q. 30, 275–282. doi: 10.1177/0891242416656049

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kovács, Z., Wiessner, R., and Zischner, R. (2013). Urban renewal in the inner city of Budapest: gentrification from a post-socialist perspective. Urban Stud. 50, 22–38. doi: 10.1177/0042098012453856

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lai, Y., Chen, K., Zhang, J., and Liu, F. (2020). Transformation of industrial land in urban renewal in Shenzhen, China. Land 9, 371. doi: 10.3390/land9100371

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lai, Y., and Tang, B. (2016). Institutional barriers to redevelopment of urban villages in China: a transaction cost perspective. Land Use Policy 58, 482–490. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lai, Y., Wang, J., and Lok, W. (2017). Redefining property rights over collective land in the urban redevelopment of Shenzhen, China. Land Use Policy 69, 485–493. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lan, C. I.-C., and Lee, C.-J. (2021). Property-led renewal, state-induced rent gap, and the sociospatial unevenness of sustainable regeneration in Taipei. Hous. Stud. 36, 843–866. doi: 10.1080/02673037.2020.1720615

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Larsen, H. G., and Hansen, A. L. (2008). Gentrification-gentle or traumatic? urban renewal policies and socioeconomic transformations in Copenhagen. Urban Stud. 45, 2429–2448. doi: 10.1177/0042098008097101

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lazoroska, D., and Palm, J. (2019). Dialogue with property owners and property developers as a tool for sustainable transformation: a literature review. J. Clean Prod. 233, 328–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.040

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leary, M. E., and McCarthy, J. (2013). The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203108581

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, G. K. L., and Chan, E. H. W. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Soc. Indic. Res. 89, 155–168. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9228-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lees, L. (2003). Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Stud. 40, 2487–2509. doi: 10.1080/0042098032000136174

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lees, L. (2012). The geography of gentrification: thinking through comparative urbanism. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 155–171. doi: 10.1177/0309132511412998

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, C., Wang, M. Y., and Day, J. (2021). Reconfiguration of state–society relations: the making of uncompromising nail households in urban housing demolition and relocation in Dalian, China. Urban Stud. 58, 1581–1597. doi: 10.1177/0042098020912151

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, L., Zhu, J., Duan, M., Li, P., and Guo, X. (2022). Overcoming the collaboration barriers among stakeholders in urban renewal based on a two-mode social network analysis. Land 11, 1865. doi: 10.3390/land11101865

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, S., and Qu, F. (2022). Preserving authenticity in urban regeneration: a framework for the new definition from the perspective of multi-subject stakeholders-a case study of Nantou in Shenzhen, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 9135. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159135

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, X., Hui, E. C. M., Chen, T., Lang, W., and Guo, Y. (2019). From Habitat III to the new urbanization agenda in China: seeing through the practices of the “three old renewals” in Guangzhou. Land Use Policy 81, 513–522. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, X., Zhang, F., Hui, E. C., and Lang, W. (2020). Collaborative workshop and community participation: a new approach to urban regeneration in China. Cities 102, 102743. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102743

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, Y., Chen, X., Tang, B., and Wong, S. W. (2018). From project to policy: adaptive reuse and urban industrial land restructuring in Guangzhou City, China. Cities 82, 68–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.05.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, Z., Li, X., and Wang, L. (2014). Speculative urbanism and the making of university towns in China: a case of Guangzhou University Town. Habitat Int. 44, 422–431. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.08.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liang, X., Coscia, C., Dellapiana, E., Martin, J., and Zhang, Y. (2022). Complex social value-based approach for decision-making and valorization process in chinese world cultural heritage site: the case of Kulangsu (China). Land 11, 614. doi: 10.3390/land11050614

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin, G. C. S. (2015). The redevelopment of China's construction land: practising land property rights in cities through renewals. China Q. 224, 865–887. doi: 10.1017/S0305741015001228

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin, W. (2022). Garnering sympathy: moral appeals and land bargaining under autocracy. J. Inst. Econ. 18, 767–784. doi: 10.1017/S1744137421000862

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin, Y., de Meulder, B., and Wang, S. (2011). Understanding the ‘village in the city' in Guangzhou: economic integration and development issue and their implications for the Urban Migrant. Urban Stud. 48, 3583–3598. doi: 10.1177/0042098010396239

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, G., Wei, L., Gu, J., Zhou, T., and Liu, Y. (2020). Benefit distribution in urban renewal from the perspectives of efficiency and fairness: a game theoretical model and the government's role in China. Cities 96, 102422. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102422

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, H., Xiao, Y., Wen, H., Ren, H., and Xiong, T. (2022). How renewal of urban villages affects their externalities on housing prices: heterogeneous analysis from Hangzhou, China. J. Urban Plan. Dev 148, 04022033. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000863

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, L., Chen, J., Cai, Q., Huang, Y., and Lang, W. (2020). System building and multistakeholder involvement in public participatory community planning through both collaborative- and micro-regeneration. Sustainability 12, 8808. doi: 10.3390/su12218808

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, L., and Xu, Z. (2018). Collaborative governance: a potential approach to preventing violent demolition in China. Cities 79, 26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, R., and Wong, T.-C. (2018). Urban village redevelopment in Beijing: the state-dominated formalization of informal housing. Cities 72, 160–172. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Jin, X., and Dupre, K. (2022). Engaging stakeholders in contested urban heritage planning and management. Cities 122, 103521. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103521

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Lin, Y., Fu, N., Geertman, S., and van Oort, F. (2018). Towards inclusive and sustainable transformation in Shenzhen: urban redevelopment, displacement patterns of migrants and policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 173, 24–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.224

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Zhu, A.-X., Wang, J., Li, W., Hu, G., and Hu, Y. (2019). Land-use decision support in brownfield redevelopment for urban renewal based on crowdsourced data and a presence-and-background learning (PBL) method. Land Use Policy 88, 104188. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104188

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

López-Robles, J. R., Rodríguez-Salvador, M., Gamboa-Rosales, N. K., Ramirez-Rosales, S., and Cobo, M. J. (2019). The last five years of big data research in economics, econometrics and finance: identification and conceptual analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 162, 729–736. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lorenzen, M. (2021). Rural gentrification, touristification, and displacement: analysing evidence from Mexico. J. Rural Stud. 86, 62–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.05.015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Loretta, L., Bang, S., and Hyun Morales, E. L. (2015). Global Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement. Bristol: Policy Press. doi: 10.1332/policypress/9781447313472.003.0017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Loures, L. (2015). Post-industrial landscapes as drivers for urban redevelopment: public versus expert perspectives towards the benefits and barriers of the reuse of post-industrial sites in urban areas. Habitat Int. 45, 72–81. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.028

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Louw, E. (2008). Land assembly for urban transformation - the case of 's-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands. Land Use Policy 25, 69–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.09.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mah, J. (2021). Gentrification-induced displacement in Detroit, Michigan: an analysis of evictions. Hous. Policy Debate 31, 446–468. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2020.1800781

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martinez, P. G. (2017). Urban authenticity at stake: a new framework for its definition from the perspective of heritage at the Shanghai Music Valley. Cities 70, 55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCarthy, L. (2002). The brownfield dual land-use policy challenge: reducing barriers to private redevelopment while connecting reuse to broader community goals. Land Use Policy 19, 287–296. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00023-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McKay, T. J. M., and Tantoh, H. B. (2021). A dialogue approach to stakeholder engagement with urban communities: the case of Mofolo Park, Soweto, Johannesburg, South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 64, 2172–2191. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1862769

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehdipanah, R., Manzano, A., Borrell, C., Malmusi, D., Rodriguez-Sanz, M., Greenhalgh, J., et al. (2015). Exploring complex causal pathways between urban renewal, health and health inequality using a theory-driven realist approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 124, 266–274. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehdipanah, R., Marra, G., Melis, G., and Gelormino, E. (2018). Urban renewal, gentrification and health equity: a realist perspective. Eur. J. Public Health 28, 243–248. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckx202

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Menezes, F., and Pitchford, R. (2004). The land assembly problem revisited. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 34, 155–162. doi: 10.1016/S0166-0462(03)00041-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mirzakhani, A., Turro, M., and Jalilisadrabad, S. (2021). Key stakeholders and operation processes in the regeneration of historical urban fabrics in Iran. Cities 118, 103362. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103362

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nelson, P. B., Oberg, A., and Nelson, L. (2010). Rural gentrification and linked migration in the United States. J. Rural Stud. 26, 343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.06.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, T. B., van der Krabben, E., Spencer, J. H., and Truong, K. T. (2017). Collaborative development: capturing the public value in private real estate development projects in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Cities 68, 104–118. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olds, K., Bunnell, T., and Leckie, S. (2002). Forced evictions in tropical cities: an introduction. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 23, 247–251. doi: 10.1111/1467-9493.00129

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Onodugo, V. A., Ezeadichie, N. H., Onwuneme, C. A., and Anosike, A. E. (2016). The dilemma of managing the challenges of street vending in public spaces: the case of Enugu City, Nigeria. Cities 59, 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.06.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Osman, R., Frantal, B., Klusacek, P., Kunc, J., and Martinat, S. (2015). Factors affecting brownfield regeneration in post-socialist space: the case of the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 48, 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pan, W., and Du, J. (2021). Towards sustainable urban transition: a critical review of strategies and policies of urban village renewal in Shenzhen, China. Land Use Policy 111, 105744. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105744

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Perez-Soba, M., Paterson, J., Metzger, M. J., Gramberger, M., Houtkamp, J., Jensen, A., et al. (2018). Sketching sustainable land use in Europe by 2040: a multi-stakeholder participatory approach to elicit cross-sectoral visions. Reg. Envir. Chang. 18, 775–787. doi: 10.1007/s10113-018-1297-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peric, A., and Maruna, M. (2022). Post-socialist discourse of urban megaproject development: from city on the water to belgrade waterfront. Cities 130, 103876. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103876

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pettit, C. J., Hawken, S., Ticzon, C., Leao, S. Z., Afrooz, A. E., Lieske, S. N., et al. (2019). Breaking down the silos through geodesign - envisioning Sydney's urban future. Env. Plan. B-Urban Anal. CIty Sci. 46, 1387–1404. doi: 10.1177/2399808318812887

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phillips, R. G., and Stein, J. M. (2013). An indicator framework for linking historic preservation and community economic development. Soc. Indic. Res. 113, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9833-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pipa, H., de Brito, J., and Cruz, C. O. (2017). Sustainable rehabilitation of historical urban areas: portuguese case of the urban rehabilitation societies. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 143, 05016011. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000348

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pourzakarya, M., and Bahramjerdi, S. F. N. (2021). Community-led regeneration practice in Ghalam Gudeh District, Bandar Anzali, Iran: a participatory action research (PAR) Project. Land Use Policy 105, 105416. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105416

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Radulescu, C. M., Stefan, O., Radulescu, G. M. T., Radulescu, A. T. G. M., and Radulescu, M. V. G. M. (2016). Management of stakeholders in urban regeneration projects. Case study: Baia-Mare, Transylvania. Sustainability 8, 238. doi: 10.3390/su8030238

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramiller, A. (2022). Displacement through development? Property turnover and eviction risk in Seattle. Urban Stud. 59, 1148–1166. doi: 10.1177/00420980211004214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roberts, P., Granger, R., and Sykes, H. (2016). Urban Regeneration. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781473921788

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roberts, P., and Sykes, H. (2000). Urban Regeneration: A Handbook. London: SAGE.

Google Scholar

Roberts, R. E., and Okanya, O. (2022). Measuring the socio-economic impact of forced evictions and illegal demolition; a comparative study between displaced and existing informal settlements. Soc. Sci. J. 59, 119–138. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scarpaci, J. L. (2000). Reshaping Habana vieja: revitalization, historic preservation, and restructuring in the socialist city. Urban Geogr. 21, 724–744. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.21.8.724

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuetz, J. (2020). Teardowns, popups, and renovations: how does housing supply change? J. Reg. Sci. 60, 459–480. doi: 10.1111/jors.12470

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shen, L., Yuan, H., and Kong, X. (2013). Paradoxical phenomenon in urban renewal practices: promotion of sustainable construction versus buildings' short lifespan. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 17, 377–389. doi: 10.3846/1648715X.2013.849301

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shen, X., Wang, L., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., and Lu, Z. (2019). Interpreting non-conforming urban expansion from the perspective of stakeholders' decision-making behavior. Habitat Int. 89, 102007. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shi, J., Duan, K., Wu, G., Zhang, R., and Feng, X. (2020). Comprehensive metrological and content analysis of the public–private partnerships (PPPs) research field: a new bibliometric journey. Scientometrics 124, 2145–2184. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03607-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shi, J., Min, X., Si, H., Tang, D., and Miao, W. (2019). The transition from housing demolition to conservation and renovation in shanghai: challenges and countermeasures. Land 8, 175. doi: 10.3390/land8110175

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shih, M. (2010). The evolving law of disputed relocation: constructing inner-city renewal practices in Shanghai, 1990–2005. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 34, 350–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00895.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shin, H. B. (2008). Living on the edge: financing post-displacement housing in urban redevelopment projects in Seoul. Environ. Urban. 20, 411–426. doi: 10.1177/0956247808096120

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shin, H. B. (2009). Residential redevelopment and the entrepreneurial local state: the implications of beijing's shifting emphasis on urban redevelopment policies. Urban Stud. 46, 2815–2839. doi: 10.1177/0042098009345540

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 34, 427–450. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00249

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stenner, R. D., Hull, R. N., and Willes, R. F. (2002). “Involving stakeholders to achieve successful development of brownfield sites,” in Brownfield Sites: Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development, eds C. A. Brebbia, D. Almorza, and H. Klapperich (Southampton: Wit Press), 153–161.

Google Scholar

Stezar, I. C., Ozunu, A., and Barry, D. L. (2014). The role of stakeholder attitudes in managing contaminated sites: survey of Romanian stakeholder awareness. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 787–800. doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-2238-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sullivan, E. (2014). Halfway homeowners: eviction and forced relocation in a Florida manufactured home park. Law Soc. Inq. 39, 474–497. doi: 10.1111/lsi.12070

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Talen, E. (2014). Housing demolition during urban renewal. City Community 13, 233–253. doi: 10.1111/cico.12070

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tallon, A. (2013). Urban Regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203802847

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tan, X., and Altrock, U. (2016). Struggling for an adaptive strategy? Discourse analysis of urban regeneration processes – a case study of Enning Road in Guangzhou City. Habitat Int. 56, 245–257. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tian, L., Liu, J., Liang, Y., and Wu, Y. (2022). A participatory e-planning model in the urban renewal of China: implications of technologies in facilitating planning participation. Env. Plan. B-Urban Anal. City Sci. 50, 299–315. doi: 10.1177/23998083221111163

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tian, X., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., and Zhong, S. (2018). Trends and features of embodied flows associated with international trade based on bibliometric analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 131, 148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tort-Donada, J., Santasusagna, A., Rode, S., and Teresa Vadri, M. (2020). Bridging the gap between city and water: a review of urban-river regeneration projects in France and Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 700, 134460. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134460

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Uzun, C. N. (2003). The impact of urban renewal and gentrification on urban fabric: three cases in Turkey. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 94, 363–375. doi: 10.1111/1467-9663.00263

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Valli, C. (2015). A sense of displacement: long-time residents' feelings of displacement in gentrifying Bushwick, New York. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 39, 1191–1208. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12340

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van der Krabben, E., and Buitelaar, E. (2011). Industrial land and property markets: market processes, market institutions and market outcomes: the Dutch Case. Eur. Plan. Stud. 19, 2127–2146. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.633822

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111, 1053–1070. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandenbussche, L. (2018). Mapping stakeholders' relating pathways in collaborative planning processes; a longitudinal case study of an urban regeneration partnership. Plan. Theory Pract. 19, 534–557. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2018.1508737

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

von Hoffman, A. (2000). A study in contradictions: the origins and legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Hous. Policy Debate 11, 299–326. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2000.9521370

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, B., Tian, L., and Yao, Z. (2018). Institutional uncertainty, fragmented urbanization and spatial lock-in of the pen-urban area of China: a case of industrial land redevelopment in Panyu. Land Use Policy 72, 241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, D., Wu, M., Qu, J., and Fan, Y. (2022). How to motivate planners to participate in community micro-renewal: an evolutionary game analysis. Front. Psychol. 13, 943958. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943958

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, H., Shen, Q., and Tang, B. (2015). GIS-based framework for supporting land use planning in urban renewal: case study in Hong Kong. J. Urban Plan. Dev 141, 05014015. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000216

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, H., Shen, Q., Tang, B., Lu, C., Peng, Y., and Tang, L. (2014). A framework of decision-making factors and supporting information for facilitating sustainable site planning in urban renewal projects. Cities 40, 44–55. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.04.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, H., Shen, Q., Tang, B.-S., and Skitmore, M. (2013). An integrated approach to supporting land-use decisions in site redevelopment for urban renewal in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 38, 70–80. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.09.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Gao, X., and Gao, B. (2021). Collaborative decision-making for urban regeneration: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Land Use Policy 107, 105479. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105479

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Q., Yang, C., Lu, J., Wu, F., and Xu, R. (2020). Analysis of preservation priority of historic buildings along the subway based on matter-element model. J. Cult. Herit. 45, 291–302. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2020.03.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, S., Yung, E., Hiu Kwan, Yu, Y., and Tsou, J. Y. (2022). Right to the city and community facility planning for elderly: the case of urban renewal district in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy 114, 105978. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105978

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, X., Ye, K., Zhuang, T., and Liu, R. (2022). The influence of collusive information dissemination on bidder's collusive willingness in urban construction projects. Land 11, 643. doi: 10.3390/land11050643

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, G., Li, Y., and Asare, M. H. (2017). Fuzzy evaluation of comprehensive benefit in urban renewal based on the perspective of core stakeholders. Habitat Int. 66, 163–170. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.06.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Y., and Xiang, P. (2019). Investigate the conduction path of stakeholder conflict of urban regeneration sustainability in China: the application of social-based solutions. Sustainability 11, 5271. doi: 10.3390/su11195271

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Werkneh, M. (2017). Retaking mecca: healing harlem through restorative just compensation. Columbia J. Law Soc. Probl. 51, 225–273. Available online at: https://jlsp.law.columbia.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/213/files/2018/04/Vol51-Werkneh.pdf

Google Scholar

Wilhelm-Solomon, M. (2016). Decoding dispossession: eviction and urban regeneration in Johannesburg's dark buildings. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 37, 378–395. doi: 10.1111/sjtg.12165

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, F. (2004). Residential relocation under market-oriented redevelopment: the process and outcomes in urban China. Geoforum 35, 453–470. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.10.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, F. (2016). State dominance in urban redevelopment: beyond gentrification in urban China. Urban Aff. Rev. 52, 631–658. doi: 10.1177/1078087415612930

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, F., Zhang, F., and Webster, C. (2013). Informality and the development and demolition of urban villages in the Chinese Peri-urban Area. Urban Stud. 50, 1919–1934. doi: 10.1177/0042098012466600

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, J., and Xiong, J. (2022). How governance tools facilitate citizen co-production behavior in urban community micro-regeneration: evidence from Shanghai. Land 11, 1243. doi: 10.3390/land11081243

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, W., He, F., Zhuang, T., and Yi, Y. (2020). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in the decision-making of industrial land redevelopment in China: the case of Shanghai. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249206

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, X., Li, C., Zhang, J., Wang, T., Wu, L., and Jia, M. (2020). “Occupation-competition-regeneration” nexus among land uses in a Chinese city: interactions and transformations. J. Clean. Prod. 265. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121778

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wyly, E., Newman, K., Schafran, A., and Lee, E. (2010). Displacing New York. Environ. Plan. A 42, 2602–2623. doi: 10.1068/a42519

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xia, S., Liu, B., and Wang, H. (2022). Construction of a sustainability-based building attribute conservation assessment model in historic areas. Buildings 12, 1346. doi: 10.3390/buildings12091346

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xian, S., and Gu, Z. (2020). The making of social injustice and changing governance approaches in urban regeneration: stories of Enning Road, China. Habitat Int. 98, 102149. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102149

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xu, Z., and Lin, G. C. S. (2019). Participatory urban redevelopment in Chinese cities amid accelerated urbanization: symbolic urban governance in globalizing Shanghai. J. Urban Aff. 41, 756–775. doi: 10.1080/07352166.2018.1536420

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, D. Y.-R., and Chang, J.-C. (2018). Financialising space through transferable development rights: urban renewal, Taipei style. Urban Stud. 55, 1943–1966. doi: 10.1177/0042098017710124

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, R. J. (2014). An investigation of stakeholder analysis in urban development projects: Empirical or rationalistic perspectives. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 838–849. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ye, L., Peng, X., Aniche, L. Q., Scholten, P. H. T., and Ensenado, E. M. (2021). Urban renewal as policy innovation in China: from growth stimulation to sustainable development. Public Adm. Dev. 41, 23–33. doi: 10.1002/pad.1903

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yiannakou, A. (2020). Urban regeneration as a perpetual planning process: understanding the role of stakeholders in property-led regeneration projects in Greek cities. Local Econ. 35, 83–104. doi: 10.1177/0269094220914470

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yu, T., Shen, G. Q., Shi, Q., Lai, X., Li, C. Z., and Xu, K. (2017). Managing social risks at the housing demolition stage of urban redevelopment projects: a stakeholder-oriented study using social network analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 925–941. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuan, D., Bao, H., Yau, Y., and Skitmore, M. (2020). Case-based analysis of drivers and challenges for implementing government-led urban village redevelopment projects in China: evidence from Zhejiang Province. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 146, 05020014. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000594

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuan, D., Yau, Y., Bao, H., Liu, Y., and Liu, T. (2019). anatomizing the institutional arrangements of urban village redevelopment: case studies in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability 11, 3376. doi: 10.3390/su11123376

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuen, B. (2006). Reclaiming cultural heritage in Singapore. Urban Aff. Rev. 41, 830–854. doi: 10.1177/1078087406289187

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yung, E.-L. K., Zhang, Q., and Chan, E. H. W. (2017). Underlying social factors for evaluating heritage conservation in urban renewal districts. Habitat Int. 66, 135–148. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.06.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yung, E. H. K., Chan, E. H. W., and Xu, Y. (2014). Sustainable development and the rehabilitation of a historic urban district - social sustainability in the case of Tianzifang in Shanghai. Sustain. Dev. 22, 95–112. doi: 10.1002/sd.534

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Yang, X., and Wang, H. (2021). Age-friendly regeneration of urban settlements in China: game and incentives of stakeholders in decision-making. Land Use Policy 111, 105745. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105745

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, L., Lin, Y., Hooimeijer, P., and Geertman, S. (2020). Heterogeneity of public participation in urban redevelopment in Chinese cities: Beijing versus Guangzhou. Urban Stud. 57, 1903–1919. doi: 10.1177/0042098019862192

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, W., Zhang, X., and Wu, G. (2021). The network governance of urban renewal: a comparative analysis of two cities in China. Land Use Policy 106, 105448. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105448

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhao, W., and Zhou, B. (2022). Out of the dilemma: industrial heritage value evaluation and renewal suitability research in Chengdu, China. J. Urban Plan. Dev 148, 04022004. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000819

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng, H. W., Shen, G. Q., and Wang, H. (2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat Int. 41, 272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.08.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zheng, X., Li, J., Zheng, L., and Lv, J. (2020). Multi-owned property, urban renewal and neighborhood property value externalities: revisiting the Hong Kong case. Cities 107, 102915. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102915

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhong, X., and Leung, H. H. (2019). Exploring participatory microregeneration as sustainable renewal of built heritage community: two case studies in Shanghai. Sustainability 11, 1617. doi: 10.3390/su11061617

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhou, Y., Lan, F., and Zhou, T. (2021). An experience-based mining approach to supporting urban renewal mode decisions under a multi-stakeholder environment in China. Land Use Policy 106, 105428. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105428

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhu, S., Li, D., and Jiang, Y. (2020). The impacts of relationships between critical barriers on sustainable old residential neighborhood renewal in China. Habitat Int. 103, 102232. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102232

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhuang, T., Qian, Q., Visscher, H., and Elsinga, M. (2017). Stakeholders' expectations in urban renewal projects in china: a key step towards sustainability. Sustainability 9, 1640. doi: 10.3390/su9091640

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhuang, T., Qian, Q. K., Visscher, H., and Elsinga, M. G. (2020). An analysis of urban renewal decision-making in China from the perspective of transaction costs theory: the case of Chongqing. J. Hous. Built Environ. 35, 1177–1199. doi: 10.1007/s10901-020-09733-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhuang, T., Qian, Q. K., Visscher, H. J., Elsinga, M. G., and Wu, W. (2019). The role of stakeholders and their participation network in decision-making of urban renewal in China: the case of Chongqing. Cities 92, 47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A. H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2018). Gentrification, displacement, and the role of public investment. J. Plan. Lit. 33, 31–44. doi: 10.1177/0885412217716439

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar