IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v147y2024ics0264837724003120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dissemination, manipulation or monopolization? Understanding the influence of stakeholder information sharing on resident participation in neighborhood rehabilitation of urban China

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Yu
  • Zhu, Penglin
  • Mlecnik, Erwin
  • Qian, Queena K.
  • Visscher, Henk J.

Abstract

Socially sustainable urban renewal hinges on active public participation, necessitating effective information sharing. Combining Social Network Analysis (SNA) and Ecological Network Analysis (ENA), this study longitudinally investigates how stakeholder information sharing evolves over the project lifecycle of neighborhood rehabilitation and its impacts on resident participation. A representative neighborhood rehabilitation project in Wuhan, China, serves as the study case, with data from 10 interviews, 35 questionnaires, and 3 focus groups. The study suggests that SNA and ENA are complementary and competent in identifying key stakeholders, as well as uncovering undesirable behaviors of manipulation and monopolization, and unhealthy relationships like exploitation and competition. Implementation unit and neighborhood committee emerged as principal information holders, while local media and tenant were least informed. SNA results underscore the central position of neighborhood committee in collecting and disseminating information, demonstrating significant autonomy and control throughout project lifecycle. Conversely, homeowner showed marked dependence and lacked control, particularly in the planning and design phase. ENA findings reveal neighborhood committee’s ongoing struggle with information exploitation, eroding its willingness and capacity to share information during the later phases of rehabilitation process. The information exploitation led to a fragile network that further marginalized local media, undermined by dwindling trust and autonomy. Notably, homeowners amplified their discourse power as project progressed, shifting from passive recipients to active decision-makers. Yet, well-informed homeowners monopolized information sharing, deliberately excluding others with conflicting interests, intensifying issues of inequity and opacity. Policy recommendations are provided to counter unhealthy stakeholder dynamics and promote equitable and inclusive public participation in urban renewal initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Yu & Zhu, Penglin & Mlecnik, Erwin & Qian, Queena K. & Visscher, Henk J., 2024. "Dissemination, manipulation or monopolization? Understanding the influence of stakeholder information sharing on resident participation in neighborhood rehabilitation of urban China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724003120
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724003120
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107359?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu, Yang & Hamnett, Chris & Ye, Yumin & Guo, Wenwen, 2021. "Top-down intergovernmental relations and power-building from below in China's urban redevelopment: An urban political order perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Fath, Brian D., 2007. "Network mutualism: Positive community-level relations in ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 208(1), pages 56-67.
    3. Lufeng Wu, 2023. "Effects of informal institutions on stakeholder and public participation in public infrastructure megaprojects: a case study of Shanghai," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(8), pages 1655-1674, July.
    4. Bert Enserink & Rene Monnikhof, 2003. "Information Management for Public Participation in Co-design Processes: Evaluation of a Dutch Example," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 315-344.
    5. Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Xinxin & Wu, Guangdong, 2021. "The network governance of urban renewal: A comparative analysis of two cities in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. Jia, Ling & Qian, Queena K. & Meijer, Frits & Visscher, Henk, 2021. "How information stimulates homeowners’ cooperation in residential building energy retrofits in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Shen, Tiyan & Yao, Xinyi & Wen, Fenghua, 2021. "The Urban Regeneration Engine Model: An analytical framework and case study of the renewal of old communities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    8. Xiaoru Zheng & Chunling Sun & Jingjing Liu, 2024. "Exploring stakeholder engagement in urban village renovation projects through a mixed-method approach to social network analysis: a case study of Tianjin," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.
    10. Zhilin Liu & Sainan Lin & Tingting Lu & Yue Shen & Sisi Liang, 2023. "Towards a constructed order of co-governance: Understanding the state–society dynamics of neighbourhood collaborative responses to COVID-19 in urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(9), pages 1730-1749, July.
    11. Jing Yang & Geoffrey Qiping Shen & Lynda Bourne & Christabel Man-Fong Ho & Xiaolong Xue, 2011. "A typology of operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 145-162.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lingyan Li & Jiaxin Zhu & Mimi Duan & Pingbo Li & Xiaotong Guo, 2022. "Overcoming the Collaboration Barriers among Stakeholders in Urban Renewal Based on a Two-Mode Social Network Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Jianglin Lu & Keqiang Wang & Hongmei Liu, 2022. "Residents’ Selection Behavior of Compensation Schemes for Construction Land Reduction: Empirical Evidence from Questionnaires in Shanghai, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, December.
    4. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    5. Aliyu, Murtala Bello & Mohd, Mohd Hafiz, 2021. "The interplay between mutualism, competition and dispersal promotes species coexistence in a multiple interactions type system," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 452(C).
    6. Jinkun Yang & Linchuan Yang & Haitao Ma, 2022. "Community Participation Strategy for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Xiamen, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Borrett, Stuart R. & Sheble, Laura & Moody, James & Anway, Evan C., 2018. "Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 382(C), pages 63-82.
    8. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    9. Olivier Beaumais & Anne Briand & Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2010. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation Study," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10051, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    10. Kailun Fang & Suzana Ariff Azizan & Yifei Wu, 2023. "Low-Carbon Community Regeneration in China: A Case Study in Dadong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, February.
    11. María Jesús Ávila-Gutiérrez & Alejandro Martín-Gómez & Francisco Aguayo-González & Juan Ramón Lama-Ruiz, 2020. "Eco-Holonic 4.0 Circular Business Model to Conceptualize Sustainable Value Chain towards Digital Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-32, March.
    12. Xiyao Zhao & Yueting Mao & Yun Qian & Qing Lin, 2022. "The Promoting Effect of Mass Media on Participatory Landscape Revitalization—An Analysis from Newspaper Coverages of Participatory Urban Gardening in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    13. Fath, Brian D. & Scharler, Ursula M. & Baird, Dan, 2013. "Dependence of network metrics on model aggregation and throughflow calculations: Demonstration using the Sylt–Rømø Bight Ecosystem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 214-219.
    14. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    16. Shen, Liyin & Liu, Yan & Ren, Yitian & Wong, Siu Wai, 2024. "A methodological framework for analysing the justice phenomenon embedded in urban regeneration: A Chinese perspective based at the project level," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    17. Paul Dolan & Georgios Kavetsos, 2012. "Happy Talk: Mode of Administration Effects on Subjective Well-Being," CEP Discussion Papers dp1159, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. Yijing Chu & Yingying Wang & Zucheng Zhang & Shengli Dai, 2022. "Decoupling of Economic Growth and Industrial Water Use in Hubei Province: From an Ecological–Economic Interaction Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    19. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2009. "Comparing responses from web and paper-based collection modes in a choice modelling experiment," Research Reports 94941, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    20. Roberto Cazzolla Gatti & Roger Koppl & Brian D. Fath & Stuart Kauffman & Wim Hordijk & Robert E. Ulanowicz, 2020. "On the emergence of ecological and economic niches," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 99-127, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:147:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724003120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.