1. Introduction
Given its rapid urbanization and the emergence of substantial demand for urban land, China is currently facing an unprecedented challenge of sustainable urban development and economic growth. Some large cities in China are at the bottleneck of urban development because the land resources for further development have become finite. Against this background, urban renewal has become a crucial component of urban development [1,2]. In Chinese cities, collective land exists in urban villages, which results from village-led land conversion and construction activities [3,4]. Dominated by villagers’ interests, village-led development of urban villages has led to multifarious negative outcomes, such as limited land property rights [5,6], inadequate infrastructure [7,8], potential safety hazards [9], and inefficient land use [6,10]. To the governments, the problems of urban villages require urgent solutions, and the governance of urban villages is the main issue in urban development [11,12,13]. Therefore, urban village rebuilding has become an important component in the practice of urban renewal in China to meet the emerging land-use needs, attract further investment, and sustain economic growth.
Urban village redevelopment generally refers to the demolition and rehabilitation of urban village buildings, involving several complicated processes, including urban space rebuilding [6], land ownership transformation [14], land value increment [15], and spatial benefit redistribution [16], which have attracted serious attention from the academic community in the past decades. A wealth of studies have investigated the role and relations of different stakeholders in the redevelopment processes based on empirical cases [16,17,18]. The main participants in the urban village redevelopment include the local governments, real estate developers, and local villagers [19]. Different types of governance modes have been adopted in the processes of urban village redevelopment, such as the government-led model [16,20,21], market-led model [22,23], and collective-led model [14,22,24], to name a few. Different governance models have led to dissimilar collaborative relationships among the relevant stakeholders [25]. Some studies focused on the socio-economic consequences of urban village redevelopment. Urban village redevelopment has been well recognized as having brought profound and diversified impacts to various social groups and urban spaces. On the one hand, the urban village redevelopment has improved land use efficiency [6,26] and has been found to have positive effects on the surrounding housing prices [27]. On the other hand, urban village redevelopments have resulted in a large-scale displacement of migrants [21,28,29] and have brought negative impacts to these people who have made fundamental contributions to urban development [30,31,32]. Another pool of literature has made efforts to propose strategies for better redevelopment of urban villages in the future. More inclusive governance and planning strategies are necessary for sustainable redevelopment [26,33]. To realize the diverse objectives of urban development, a better understanding on the driving processes of urban village redevelopment is a prerequisite. However, a lack of comprehensive understanding persists on the drivers of urban village redevelopment in China.
This study aims to address this question through a comprehensive survey of existing literature. A total of 167 papers have been retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. A bibliometric analysis and a critical content analysis are then conducted on the bases of these papers. The next section introduces the research methods, followed by an overall picture of the existing research achievements. Section 3 explores the driving forces of the urban village redevelopment from the following perspectives: (i) the emerging demand for improvement of living conditions; (ii) capital accumulation and developers’ pursuit of land rent gap; (iii) the important role of the national and local governments. The last section provides a conclusion of the findings and suggestions for future studies.
2. Research Methods
2.1. Paper Retrieval
Relevant studies on urban village redevelopment were retrieved from the research database known as Web of Science (WOS) via a systematic approach. To retrieve as much related literature as possible to identify the drivers of the urban village redevelopment process, this study was not confined to articles published in a set period. We did not set a time limit or constrain the review with journal articles for the bibliometric analysis, but we did choose key published articles according to journal quality for the content analysis. The retrieval procedures are as follows: (i) Research literature was initially searched through broad phrases. In the existing literature, the urban village is also called by different terms, such as “villages in the city” or “chengzhongcun”. The formation and redevelopment of urban villages have a close relationship with the transformation of collective land. Therefore, broader search terms were combined, and the search rules used were “urban village” OR “collective land” OR “chengzhongcun” OR “villages in the city” OR “ViCs,” which were then put in the searching criterion Topic in the Web of Science (WOS) database with the language set to English. These rules have led to a total of 467 articles at the end of this step. (ii) Research results were further refined, considering the irrelevance of the topic. Articles with unrelated research fields, such as computer science, history, forestry, immunology, psychology, government law, and anthropology, among others, were excluded. After the subsequent exclusion process, 287 articles were retained. (iii) The abstract and introduction of each paper were read to exclude irrelevant ones. Given that this study focuses on the drivers of urban village redevelopment, articles concerning the origin, classification, and other issues of urban villages were excluded. The outcome and evaluation of the urban village redevelopment were also excluded. At the end of the process, 167 papers were selected for the following analysis.
2.2. Review Steps
This paper reviewed the surveyed literature via two steps. First, a bibliometric analysis, which includes a co-occurrence analysis of keywords and a co-authorship analysis, is performed to review the main research fields of publications comprehensively. VOSviewer was chosen to help understand certain relationships by providing rounded and detailed illustrations of the data collected from the WOS database. The original data source containing the bibliographic information of the literature is in TXT format. Figures and tables were also adopted to show more extensive information for further analysis. Second, a critical content investigation was adopted to identify the main drivers of urban village redevelopment in China. We found at least three main processes which have driven urban village redevelopment in China.
Given the limitations of the chosen search database, this review focused mainly on literature in English. In addition, the keywords used in this research were chosen on the basis of the object of urban village redevelopment and relevant papers, which might not be thorough. Some studies on other types of urban redevelopment that provide ideas of the driving processes were omitted. Expanding the keywords to encompass urban renewal, urban redevelopment, and urban regeneration covered a broader range of literature on the drivers of urban village redevelopment and allowed for a more comprehensive review of this field. We then conducted a content analysis with a wider scope of articles published in highly ranked journals to restrict these possible prejudices, providing a more comprehensive perspective.
3. Bibliometric Analysis
3.1. Overview
Figure 1 outlines the rise in papers published on the theme of urban village redevelopment for the period from 2008 to 2020. The upwards trajectory indicates that this field attracted increased scholarly attention during the period 2008–2016. This sharp increase finally peaked in 2018, which shows that the academic circle may have some discoveries in the field of urban village redevelopment, stimulating relevant research in various disciplines once again. The number of relevant articles published in the past three years has shown a relatively stable state, indicating that the relevant research has matured in recent years. Compared with literature in the amount of research conducted on urban renewal in related fields such as gentrification, brownfield redevelopment, and single-house redevelopment, the number of articles on urban village redevelopment remains relatively small. A room remains for contributions toward a better understanding of urban village redevelopment.
3.2. Journal Analysis
The leading twenty journals from which the aforementioned papers were obtained are outlined in Table 1. The journals span various fields, including urban studies, area studies, development studies, environment sciences and ecology, public administration, science and technology, geography, and remote sensing. Habitat International has published 24 papers on urban village redevelopment. Many of the remaining papers were retrieved from Cities, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Land Use Policy, and Journal of Urban Planning and Development. Thus, research on this topic is indicated to be mostly relevant to the discipline of urban studies, area studies, and land development. The other papers were published in geographical journals.
3.3. Keyword Analysis
The software tool VOSviewer was employed to perform a co-occurrence evaluation of the keywords, all of which had a frequency that exceeded 8. A visual word co-occurrence network was created as a result. (Figure 2a). As seen from the keyword cluster distribution, relevant research forms multiple clusters around multiple key nodes presented in a similar colour system. The overall clustering structure of existing studies is relatively clear, and keywords of different clustering have been closely related and developed in the past decade. According to Figure 2a, research on urban village redevelopment can be broadly grouped into 4 clusters with different research foci: (i) rural migrants and displacement in the renewal process (green clustering), (ii) property rights and land development (blue clustering), (iii) policies and patterns of settlements (orange clustering), and (iv) informality and governance (yellow clustering).
Figure 2b presents the visualization map of keywords changing with time. According to Figure 2b, recent scholarship focuses on land use, policy, space transformation, informality, and governance patterns. The keyword clustering in selected literature fields can readily be identified as concentrated in 2015–2020, suggesting that the research network has a strong concentration. From 2010 to 2015, most of the relevant literature focused on urbanization, market forces, and urban transformation. Research in the past five years (2015–present) began to incorporate concepts such as renewal policy, land property rights, and the impact of vulnerable groups into the literature for analysis. In recent years, concepts such as urban migration and urban governance, which have attracted substantial attention in the practice of renewal, have also attracted increasing scholarly attention and research. In terms of the frequency and time evolution of keywords, the research areas selected in the existing literature are from China’s first-tier cities, such as Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai.
3.4. Author Analysis
This section identifies authors who have contributed significantly to this research area. Table 2 presents the top ten authors who have contributed to research into urban village redevelopment and published most papers. According to Table 2, Geertman, S., Lin, Y.L., He, S.J., Wu, F.L. Lai, Y.N. and Hao, P. have all made notable contributions to the advancement of research on urban village redevelopment. Geertman, Stan, a scholar from Utrecht University, published 12 papers from 2008 to 2020. The top 10 authors listed in Table 2 are all from well-known domestic and foreign universities, three of them from Utrecht University. The domestic institutions of the authors include Hong Kong University, Shenzhen University, Hong Kong Baptist University, Wuhan University, and Sun Yat-Sen University. A co-authorship network analysis is conducted to reveal collaborative relationships among these authors. Co-authorship analysis was conducted with the counting method of full counting, which means each co-authorship link had the same weight. We constrained the minimum number of documents of each author to four and did not put a citation number limit. Of the 512 authors, 17 met the thresholds. A circle refers to one author, and the number of co-authorship links determines the size of the circle. According to Figure 3, at least five clusters of co-authorship groups exist. The authors in the same cluster collaborate with one another more than with the authors outside the cluster. Nodes with different colours are clustered closely, suggesting that the authors in the same cluster have collaborated on specific themes. These results also indicate the most active scholars and their relationships within the research field and enable easy following of the related and latest research.
4. Drivers of Urban Village Redevelopment in China
Based on a critical content analysis of the surveyed literature, we found at least three main processes which have driven urban village redevelopment in China. First, the growth of urban population and income level in the ongoing urbanization process has created an emerging solid demand to improve urban living conditions, which have triggered the restructuring of urban villages with sub-standard built environment into high-quality urban spaces. Second, from the production side, the market-oriented land reforms and the developers’ pursuit of land-related investment returns from the land rent gap is also a strong driving force for the demolition and rebuilding of urban villages. Lastly, the states and the regional governments have played a prominent part in promoting urban village redevelopment and integrating informal urban spaces into formal urban areas (Figure 4).
4.1. Emerging Demand for Improvement of Urban Living Conditions
The considerable rise in the urban population and income level in the ongoing urbanization process has created a strong market demand for high-quality living spaces in cities, especially in large cities [34,35,36]. In the 1980s, at the beginning of reform and development, China’s urban population and income were both in their infancy. At that time, the urban population was 191 million. With the rapid development of China’s cities and the growth of the urban economy, the urban population has increased significantly. According to the seventh national census, the national population reached 1,411,778,724 by 2020, among which the urban population was over 900 million. A large number of migrants have chosen to live in megacities for job opportunities, such as Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Nanjing [37,38,39]. In the case of Shenzhen, which is located in the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration, it was originally a small fishing village before reform and opening up. In less than forty years, Shenzhen has become one of China’s most populous and prosperous megacities. Shenzhen’s urban population has reached more than 17 million by 2020, and most migrants still live in urban villages [3]. The rapid growth of urban population and the aggregation of well-educated people provided sufficient impetus for urban economic development, which generally increased residents’ average income and consumption level [40]. The increase in urban population and disposable income has created a strong demand for high-quality housing conditions in recent years. Recent research shows that urban residents increasingly prefer new housing with a larger area, better building quality, improved environment [41,42], and sufficient facilities such as advanced medical care and high-quality education resources [43]. According to the UN, China’s urbanization rate will continue to increase in the coming years and reach 70% by 2030. The need to improve urban living conditions in megacities will become even more pressing [44]. Such needs can no longer be fulfilled by the informal housing provided by urban villages [21].
However, high-quality formal housing remains extremely limited in Chinese megacities. For example, in 2007, Shenzhen boasted merely one million commercial, residential units. The number increased to 1.89 million in 2020, which can only accommodate a small portion of the urban residents living in this city. Although the municipal government has made efforts to provide public housing in recent years, the stock of developed public housing is very limited. One of the specific consequences of the urbanization and land reform processes that transpired in the 1980s is that a high percentage of land within the boundaries of megacities is occupied by urban villages [8,45]. The inner conditions of urban villages are often crowded and disordered [7]. Urban villages always have high-density and poor-quality buildings [46]. The surrounding environment of urban villages typically lacks high-quality infrastructure and public service [47], among others. In the earlier urban development stage, the presence of urban villages was critical because they served as sites of affordable housing and living space for the influx of urban migrants [48,49]. In terms of the demand side, the main driver of gentrification in the West is the desire to return to the city centre [50]. By contrast, the emerging needs of China’s urban dwellers are largely reflected in the urgent demand for better living conditions. With the rising income levels, urban residents have changed their preferences of living conditions and can afford better living. Most urban villages with sub-standard environments have failed to meet the new needs for improving living conditions [41]. The mismatch between the emerging demand and the unsatisfactory urban living conditions in urban villages becomes an essential problem in megacities. In such context, the redevelopment of urban villages into high-quality formal housing estates has become an important means to fulfil the emerging housing demands [24,51].
4.2. Capital Accumulation and Developers’ Pursuit of Land-Related Investment Returns
From the supply side, profit-oriented urban capital accumulation via land-related investment has become a key driver of spatial reproduction in the global urban depressed areas [52,53]. According to Lefebvre and Nicholson-Smith [54], urban space is an important carrier to absorb capital appreciation. The reconfiguration of urban space has been heavily influenced by the rationale of capital accumulation which is now a symbolic representation of real estate values [55]. Accordingly, the land redevelopment process in urban renewal can be understood as a continuous spatial reproduction of urban depressed space [52], which is an important way to realize capital accumulation. A wealth of studies have investigated the vital role of capital accumulation in shaping the redevelopment process and outcomes in different local contexts [56,57]. According to Marxist geographer Neil Smith [58], the land rent gap is a fundamental concept to understanding land redevelopment from the perspective of capital accumulation. Specifically, the land rent gap denotes the difference between the financial returns generated by a property due to current land use and the probable returns caused if the property were put to more lucrative use. When this rent gap becomes sufficiently large for developers to reap significant investment returns from this process, redevelopment will occur. From this perspective, urban capital and developers in different countries have similar aims in relation to urban redevelopment activities, not least in respect of land-related investment returns. However, their roles and influence in this sphere may vary in accordance with difference in local renewal contexts [56,57].
With the reform of urban land system marked by the separation of the land use rights and state land ownership, a prosperous land market has been formed in China [59]. Capital accumulation and developers’ pursuit of land-related investment returns from the rent gap becomes a powerful force for urban village redevelopment in China [10,60,61]. The public infrastructure and planning policies during dynamic urbanization have substantially impacted the land rent gap. When the surrounding urban environment and infrastructure are improved, the potential rent of the urban village area keeps rising rapidly. By contrast, due to the suboptimal land use and disorganized physical environment [62], the existing land rent in urban villages has been low for a long time. The formation of land rent gap makes it profitable for developers to redevelop urban villages for “highest and best” use (Figure 5). According to previous literature, well-located urban villages, such as in large cities or close to urban centres, are supposed to experience earlier redevelopment in comparison to villages located in outlying zones [21,63]. However, a recent study shows that the land rent gap of urban villages is also affected by many other factors like land ownership and rights, existing land use, and planned land use. These factors collectively affected the land rent gap as well as the attributes of transaction costs in the redevelopment processes and shaped redevelopment outcomes [64]. On the one hand, capital accumulation and developers’ pursuit of land-related investment returns has promoted the demolition and rebuilding of urban villages and has contributed to many formal housing units via redevelopment [65]. On the other hand, market-oriented redevelopment of urban villages has brought some negative impacts to some vulnerable social groups and the city. Migrants have been forced to move out of urban villages. This phenomenon will inevitably threaten social sustainability in urban development [27,66].
4.3. Important Role of the States and Local Governments
The local states have played a critical role in the land redevelopment processes [18,67,68]. Along with the constant market-oriented reforms over the past years, the state increasingly relies on market approaches to stimulate redevelopment activities and realize developmental objectives known as “state entrepreneurialism” [69,70,71]. With limited resources, fierce competition exists among local governments for urban growth and development [59,68]. Under such a background, the local states have strong motivations to attract investments and migrants for urban development [72]. However, the widely existing informal urban lands, such as urban villages, have become a huge obstacle to sustainable development [73,74]. A large-scale informal urban space based on collective land lacks legal property rights and is outside the urban planning and land management system [75], which fails to support high-quality urban development [76]. In the case of Shenzhen, where land resources are extremely scarce, urban villages (393.3 km2) accounted for more than 55% of the entire urban area (703.5 km2) at the end of 2006 [3]. Such informal space developed by the villages has led to a disordered built environment with inadequate public infrastructure and service provision. In this context, demolition and rebuilding of urban villages have been imperative for achieving the objective of sustainable urban development. To the local governments, urban village redevelopment has a strong potential to achieve multiple development goals. In contrast to the passive intervention responses to the dominant market mechanisms, such as fixing externalities of urban redevelopment [77,78], Chinese national and local states are more proactive in shaping the processes and outcomes of urban redevelopment.
The role of the local governments has experienced a marked change in triggering and enabling the urban village redevelopment during the past decades [67,70]. Traditionally, the local governments dominated the process of urban renewal. They have rights to select redevelopment sites, make a top-down land use planning system for redevelopment [67,79], choose developers for redevelopment, and resettle affected villagers in the redevelopment process [21]. Such a state-led redevelopment process of urban villages has negative externalities. For example, the high cost and inefficiency of redevelopment fail to meet the requirements of high-speed urban development [80]. Meanwhile, such forced demolition and reconstruction also somewhat neglected the rights and interests of diverse stakeholders [14], leading to a large number of displacements of local villagers [31,81]. Along with the market-oriented reforms on land (re)development, the role of the local governments has profoundly transformed in the redevelopment of urban villages. They have strong incentives to promote the urban village redevelopment to integrate the informal settlements into formal and governable urban spaces. In many cities, the traditional state-led model of land redevelopment is supplemented with bottom-up market instruments [70,82]. In Guangdong Province, the land transfer is no longer required to get through a state requisition process. To improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of the redevelopment process, the local states increasingly rely on market actors to achieve redevelopment goals. In this case, market entities such as developers, property owners, and investment capital have become the most important actors to initiate and implement redevelopment projects in recent years [22,24,83,84]. The local states have paid increasing attention to regulatory guidance in redevelopment [66,85]. For example, they make regulations on the requirements of surveying the willingness of property owners and the qualifications of developers. Urban planning standards are carried out to guide the private planning for individual redevelopment projects [64]. The changing rules and policies have effectively promoted the redevelopment of urban villages in recent years, especially in Guangdong Province [3,14]. Nonetheless, the local states play critical roles in stimulating and regulating the redevelopment in the dynamic socio-economic environment.
5. Discussion
As China is steadily moving towards neoliberalism [66,86], the role of market forces has become even more critical in urban village redevelopment. At the same time, the states and local governments continue to play important roles in stimulating and regulating land redevelopment, which directly shape the processes and outcomes of urban village redevelopment. Despite the rapid promotion of urban village redevelopment under a market-oriented pattern, the emerging demand from urban citizens and the critical role of the state should not be ignored. Rapid urbanization and the increasing number of urban dwellers mean that the demand for improved urban living conditions in megacities will become even more pressing. The mismatch between the emerging demand and the unsatisfactory urban living conditions in urban villages will remain a strong driving force in the redevelopment processes. In the future, market forces will remain the main impetus of urban village redevelopment in China. With the gradual improvement of the real estate development system and gradual development of the national land market towards stability, the investment behaviour of urban capital and developers seeking economic returns in land redevelopment activities will become more rational. Developers will place greater value on cooperation with local governments and the impact of government intervention. Hence, their project choices will accommodate urban planning and development strategies. Moreover, the trend towards neoliberalism means that the urban village redevelopment cannot unconditionally depend on market mechanisms. Instead, this form of development needs national and local authority power in conjunction with the influence of the market. Many existing studies indicate that state intervention can create the optimal conditions for market operation [68,87,88]. Against this background, how national and local governments respond to the laws of the market, allocate power, and formulate urban planning must be considered, in addition to how redevelopment policies and systems adapt to local conditions. These considerations are central to the successful redevelopment of urban villages.
The aims and roles of Chinese and Western governments in promoting urban redevelopment are dissimilar. Early Western governments tended to promote and initiate urban redevelopment with the objective of solving urban issues. This dominated the entire redevelopment process. Gentrification, one of the main forms of urban redevelopment in the West, is considered a national strategy implemented by governments to mitigate social conflict, reduce crime, and address urban poverty [50]. The British and American governments have promoted gentrification policies, and the Dutch central government has introduced residential re-differentiation; the objective of all these governments is to achieve social integration [89,90]. The role of the state and local governments in promoting urban village redevelopment has changed during the past decades. Urban entrepreneurialism has also received growing attention [91,92,93]. An increasing number of studies confirm that the important driving force in local governments’ promotion of urban renewal is embodied in greater local competitiveness and the ability to attract local investment. Taking Europe as an example, in response to the urban renewal initiatives and the ever-developing entrepreneurship of the local authority, the Dublin government reformed the urban planning and established particular purposed urban renewal institutions [77]. Urban renewal in the United States is more dependent on the collaboration between the local authority and downtown commercial interest groups to promote declining inner cities competing with burgeoning suburbs [78].
In comparison, emerging local elites have propelled China’s urban renewal in a more efficient and low-budget instrument. The Chinese local government is willing to rely on market forces to stimulate redevelopment activities and realise developmental objectives [20]. In China, emerging local elites use decentralised state power to pursue sustainable urban development and rapid economic growth in the soaring real estate market. For example, governments in the West usually attract capital through economic means, such as capital investment, to achieve the goal of slum eradication and inner-city regeneration [77,78]. In China, the government shapes the processes and outcomes of redevelopment activities directly through urban planning, development intensity control, or other forms of policy interventions. The governments of cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou have the power to decide on projects or areas for urban redevelopment and set the direction and planning layout of redevelopment [66,85]. In Shenzhen, market players such as developers and village collectives are given the right to declare new redevelopment projects, whilst the Shenzhen government plays a role in target planning and regulatory control [3]. Therefore, future research should fully consider the local institutional background. In addition, Western urban redevelopment has formed a redevelopment pattern based on the cooperation of government, enterprises, and the public, whereas China’s urban village redevelopment still needs to be optimised in terms of residents’ demands.
The investigations into the process of urban village redevelopment have undergone rapid growth in the past decade. However, findings derived from existing literature are not always inconsistent. For example, some studies focus on market demands for high-quality urban housing driving the redevelopment of urban villages, whereas others claim that land redevelopment happens mainly through state-led actions. With the continuous deepening and expansion of relevant studies, recent research has paid increasing attention to the various local contexts and the roles of different actors in the reconstruction process of urban villages. Indeed, the redevelopment of urban villages involves intertwined processes and is driven by multiple forces. The inconsistency of findings from different studies may also arise from the different study areas. In the Chinese urbanization process, significant differences exist in different regions with various socio-economic contexts and urban development patterns, which have shaped diversified processes and outcomes of urban village redevelopment. Furthermore, a review of the existing literature shows that some limitations remain in the studies of urban village redevelopment. First, most of the existing studies on urban village redevelopment are based on individual case studies in different cities. Understanding is lacking on the bigger picture of the institutional diversity and multiple driving forces of large-scale urban village redevelopment. This study will hopefully proffer a more profound understanding on the driving forces of urban village redevelopment in China. Second, most of the existing studies are largely qualitative. Quantitative efforts are insufficient to estimate the impacts of distinct factors on the redevelopment of urban villages. For example, some policies are believed to have promoted the redevelopment of urban villages. Nevertheless, it remains unclear to what extent and how. To overcome these issues, extra efforts on both theoretical frameworks and empirical analysis are needed to better understand the changing urban villages in the future.
6. Conclusions
Redevelopment of urban villages has been a hot research topic in the past decades. However, a comprehensive understanding is lacking on the drivers of urban village redevelopment. This study fills this gap through a comprehensive survey of existing literature with the employment of a bibliometric analysis and a critical content analysis. This review enhances the understanding of the main driving processes of urban village redevelopment in China and provides a strong basis for researchers investigating the field of urban village redevelopment. Over the last decade, there was a substantial rise in the number of academic papers devoted to the study of urban village redevelopment, indicating an increasing research interest in this subject. The published journals span a variety of fields, which include urban studies, geography, and development studies. A strong market demand exists for high-quality living space; capital accumulation by realizing land rent gap and the strategy of the state and local governments are the main forces driving urban village redevelopment in China. The role of market forces in urban village redevelopment is becoming increasingly important as China moves towards neoliberalism. Simultaneously, the state and local governments continue to exert a significant effect in terms of incentives and regulation of land redevelopment, which directly impact the processes and outcomes of urban village redevelopment. Over the past years, decentralization and market-oriented policy reforms have redefined the relations between the government and the market and promoted urban village redevelopment. Further studies exploring the role of the state and local government in the market-oriented redevelopment processes would be worthwhile. However, problems persist in the redevelopment of urban villages according to the existing studies. For example, the rights and needs of the massive groups of migrants living in urban villages are still largely ignored in the redevelopment of urban villages after so many years of redevelopment practice. The rebuilding of urban villages has brought profound and negative impacts to these people, who have contributed their life to the urbanization process and economic growth in the past years. However, they continue to be excluded in the redevelopment process. How to protect these people’s interests and rights in the urban village redevelopment warrants future research attention.
Conceptualization, Y.L. and L.J.; data curation, L.J.; formal analysis, Y.L. and L.J.; methodology, Y.L. and L.J.; investigation, L.J.; resources, Y.L.; software, L.J.; supervision, Y.L.; validation, Y.L.; visualization, L.J.; writing—original draft, Y.L. and L.J.; writing—review and editing, Y.L., L.J., K.C., and X.T.; project administration, Y.L.; funding acquisition, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (74804113 and 72174122) and Shenzhen Science and Technology Plan (20200813170728001).
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2021 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management. This paper has been significantly revised and proffers a deeper understanding of the drivers of urban village redevelopment, especially in content analysis. The main three driving processes are explained in more detail. The findings in this study are discussed and summarized more fully at the end. It contains over 70% new content compared to the conference paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Keyword co-occurrence visualization. (a) network visualization. (b) overlay visualization.
Surveyed papers among different journals.
| T | Journal Title | Number | No | Journal Title | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HABITAT INTERNATIONAL | 24 | 11 | REMOTE SENSING | 4 |
| 2 | CITIES | 16 | 12 | CHINA REVIEW-AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL ON GREATER CHINA | 4 |
| 3 | URBAN STUDIES | 16 | 13 | EURASIAN GEOGRAPHY AND ECONOMICS | 3 |
| 4 | SUSTAINABILITY | 12 | 14 | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING REVIEW | 3 |
| 5 | LAND USE POLICY | 9 | 15 | ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A | 3 |
| 6 | JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | 8 | 16 | LAND | 2 |
| 7 | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL RESEARCH | 8 | 17 | ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B-URBAN ANALYTICS AND CITY SCIENCE | 2 |
| 8 | HOUSING STUDIES | 4 | 18 | ENVIRONMENT AND URBANIZATION | 2 |
| 9 | JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION | 4 | 19 | GEOFORUM | 2 |
| 10 | URBAN GEOGRAPHY | 4 | 20 | JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY CHINA | 2 |
List of the most important contributing authors.
| No | Author | Institution | Number | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Geertman, Stan | Utrecht University | 12 | 7.19 |
| 2 | Lin, Yanliu | Utrecht University | 11 | 6.59 |
| 3 | He, Shenjing | University of Hong Kong | 9 | 5.39 |
| 4 | Wu, Fulong | University College London | 9 | 5.39 |
| 5 | Lai, Yani | Shenzhen University | 8 | 4.79 |
| 6 | Hao, Pu | Hong Kong Baptist University | 6 | 3.59 |
| 7 | Li, Zhigang | Wuhan University | 6 | 3.59 |
| 8 | Webster, Chris | University of Hong Kong | 6 | 3.59 |
| 9 | Li, Xun | Sun Yat Sen University | 5 | 2.99 |
| 10 | Liu, Ying | Utrecht University | 5 | 2.99 |
References
1. Liu, Y. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy; 2018; 74, pp. 1-4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.032]
2. Liu, Y.; Fang, F.; Li, Y. Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy; 2014; 40, pp. 6-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.013]
3. Lai, Y.N.; Chan, E.H.W.; Choy, L. Village-led land development under state-led institutional arrangements in urbanising China: The case of Shenzhen. Urban Stud.; 2017; 54, pp. 1736-1759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098016629325]
4. Hao, P.; Sliuzas, R.; Geertman, S. The development and redevelopment of urban villages in Shenzhen. Habitat Int.; 2011; 35, pp. 214-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.09.001]
5. Choy, L.H.T.; Lai, Y.; Lok, W. Economic performance of industrial development on collective land in the urbanization process in China: Empirical evidence from Shenzhen. Habitat Int.; 2013; 40, pp. 184-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.04.003]
6. Tian, L. The Chengzhongcun land market in China: Boon or bane—A perspective on property rights. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.; 2008; 32, pp. 282-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00787.x]
7. Hao, P.; Hooimeijer, P.; Sliuzas, R.; Geertman, S. What Drives the Spatial Development of Urban Villages in China?. Urban Stud.; 2013; 50, pp. 3394-3411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098013484534]
8. Liu, Y.; He, S.; Wu, F.; Webster, C. Urban villages under China’s rapid urbanization: Unregulated assets and transitional neighbourhoods. Habitat Int.; 2010; 34, pp. 135-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.08.003]
9. Wang, Y.P.; Wang, Y.L.; Wu, J.S. Urbanization and Informal Development in China: Urban Villages in Shenzhen. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.; 2009; 33, pp. 957-973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00891.x]
10. Liu, S.Y.; Zhang, Y. Cities without slums? China’s land regime and dual-track urbanization. Cities; 2020; 101, 102652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102652]
11. Wu, Y.Z.; Sun, X.F.; Sun, L.S.; Choguill, C.L. Optimizing the governance model of urban villages based on integration of inclusiveness and urban service boundary (USB): A Chinese case study. Cities; 2020; 96, 102427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102427]
12. Zhang, L.; Ye, Y.M.; Chen, J. Urbanization, informality and housing inequality in indigenous villages: A case study of Guangzhou. Land Use Policy; 2016; 58, pp. 32-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.009]
13. Hussain, T.; Abbas, J.; Wei, Z.; Ahmad, S.; Bi, X.; Zhu, G. Impact of Urban Village Disamenity on Neighboring Residential Properties: Empirical Evidence from Nanjing through Hedonic Pricing Model Appraisal. J. Urban Plan. Dev.; 2021; 147, 04020055. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000645]
14. Shi, C.; Tang, B.S. Institutional change and diversity in the transfer of land development rights in China: The case of Chengdu. Urban Stud.; 2020; 57, pp. 473-489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098019845527]
15. Wu, W.J.; Wang, J.H. Gentrification effects of China’s urban village renewals. Urban Stud.; 2017; 54, pp. 214-229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098016631905]
16. Zhou, Z.H. Towards collaborative approach? Investigating the regeneration of urban village in Guangzhou, China. Habitat Int.; 2014; 44, pp. 297-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.07.011]
17. Liu, G.; Wei, L.; Gu, J.; Zhou, T.; Liu, Y. Benefit distribution in urban renewal from the perspectives of efficiency and fairness: A game theoretical model and the government’s role in China. Cities; 2020; 96, 102422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102422]
18. Guo, Y.L.; Zhang, C.G.; Wang, Y.P.; Li, X. (De-)Activating the growth machine for redevelopment: The case of Liede urban village in Guangzhou. Urban Stud.; 2018; 55, pp. 1420-1438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098017729788]
19. Jiang, Y.P.; Mohabir, N.; Ma, R.F.; Wu, L.C.; Chen, M.X. Whose village? Stakeholder interests in the urban renewal of Hubei old village in Shenzhen. Land Use Policy; 2020; 91, 104411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104411]
20. Li, L.H.; Lin, J.; Li, X.; Wu, F. Redevelopment of urban village in China—A step towards an effective urban policy? A case study of Liede village in Guangzhou. Habitat Int.; 2014; 43, pp. 299-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.03.009]
21. Liu, R.; Wong, T.C. Urban village redevelopment in Beijing: The state-dominated formalization of informal housing. Cities; 2018; 72, pp. 160-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.008]
22. Yuan, D.; Yau, Y.; Bao, H.; Lin, W. A Framework for Understanding the Institutional Arrangements of Urban Village Redevelopment Projects in China. Land Use Policy; 2020; 99, 104998. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104998]
23. Liu, X.; Huang, J.; Zhu, J. Property-rights regime in transition: Understanding the urban regeneration process in China—A case study of Jinhuajie, Guangzhou. Cities; 2019; 90, pp. 181-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.02.008]
24. Yang, Q.; Song, Y.; Cai, Y. Blending Bottom-Up and Top-Down Urban Village Redevelopment Modes: Comparing Multidimensional Welfare Changes of Resettled Households in Wuhan, China. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 7447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12187447]
25. Zhou, Y.; Lan, F.; Zhou, T. An experience-based mining approach to supporting urban renewal mode decisions under a multi-stakeholder environment in China. Land Use Policy; 2021; 106, 105428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105428]
26. Lin, Y.L.; De Meulder, B. A conceptual framework for the strategic urban project approach for the sustainable redevelopment of "villages in the city" in Guangzhou. Habitat Int.; 2012; 36, pp. 380-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.12.001]
27. Liu, Y.; Tang, S.S.; Geertman, S.; Lin, Y.L.; Van Oort, F. The chain effects of property-led redevelopment in Shenzhen: Price-shadowing and indirect displacement. Cities; 2017; 67, pp. 31-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.017]
28. He, S.J.; Liu, Y.T.; Wu, F.L.; Webster, C. Social Groups and Housing Differentiation in China’s Urban Villages: An Institutional Interpretation. Hous. Stud.; 2010; 25, pp. 671-691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2010.483585]
29. Lin, Y.L.; De Meulder, B.; Cai, X.X.; Hu, H.D.; Lai, Y.N. Linking social housing provision for rural migrants with the redevelopment of ’villages in the city’: A case study of Beijing. Cities; 2014; 40, pp. 111-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.03.011]
30. Li, M.; Xiong, Y.H. Demolition of Chengzhongcun and social mobility of Migrant youth: A case study in Beijing. Eurasian Geogr. Econ.; 2018; 59, pp. 204-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2018.1503966]
31. Wong, S.W.; Tang, B.S.; Liu, J.L. Village Redevelopment and Desegregation as a Strategy for Metropolitan Development: Some Lessons from Guangzhou City. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.; 2018; 42, pp. 1064-1079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12633]
32. Zeng, H.; Yu, X.; Zhang, J. Urban village demolition, migrant workers’ rental costs and housing choices: Evidence from Hangzhou, China. Cities; 2019; 94, pp. 70-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.029]
33. Li, X.; Hui, E.C.M.; Chen, T.T.; Lang, W.; Guo, Y.L. From Habitat III to the new urbanization agenda in China: Seeing through the practices of the "three old renewals" in Guangzhou. Land Use Policy; 2019; 81, pp. 513-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.021]
34. Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Haase, A. Endless Urban Growth? On the Mismatch of Population, Household and Urban Land Area Growth and Its Effects on the Urban Debate. PLoS ONE; 2013; 8, e66531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066531] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23840501]
35. Luo, J.J.; Zhang, X.L.; Wu, Y.Z.; Shen, J.H.; Shen, L.Y.; Xing, X.S. Urban land expansion and the floating population in China: For production or for living?. Cities; 2018; 74, pp. 219-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.12.007]
36. Moos, M. From gentrification to youthification? The increasing importance of young age in delineating high-density living. Urban Stud.; 2016; 53, pp. 2903-2920. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098015603292]
37. Cui, C.; Hooimeijer, P.; Geertman, S.; Pu, Y.X. Residential Distribution of the Emergent Class of Skilled Migrants in Nanjing. Hous. Stud.; 2015; 30, pp. 1235-1256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2015.1013094]
38. Mohabir, N.; Jiang, Y.; Ma, R. Chinese floating migrants: Rural-urban migrant labourers’ intentions to stay or return. Habitat Int.; 2017; 60, pp. 101-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.008]
39. Yang, G.; Zhou, C.S.; Jin, W.F. Integration of migrant workers: Differentiation among three rural migrant enclaves in Shenzhen. Cities; 2020; 96, 102453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102453]
40. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lin, Y. Upward or downward comparison? Migrants’ socioeconomic status and subjective wellbeing in Chinese cities. Urban Stud.; 2020; 58, pp. 2490-2513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098020954780]
41. Jing, H.; Zhimin, I.; Yang, S. Architectural Space Allocation in The Renovation of Urban Villages: Users Demand. Open House Int.; 2019; 44, pp. 118-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OHI-03-2019-B0030]
42. Hu, W.; Li, L.; Su, M. Spatial Inequity of Multi-Level Healthcare Services in a Rapid Expanding Immigrant City of China: A Case Study of Shenzhen. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 3441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183441] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31533209]
43. Jiang, Y.P.; Waley, P.; Gonzalez, S. Nice apartments, no jobs: How former villagers experienced displacement and resettlement in the western suburbs of Shanghai. Urban Stud.; 2018; 55, pp. 3202-3217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098017740246]
44. Zhang, F.; Zhang, C.; Hudson, J. Housing conditions and life satisfaction in urban China. Cities; 2018; 81, pp. 35-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.012]
45. Zhan, Y. The urbanisation of rural migrants and the making of urban villages in contemporary China. Urban Stud.; 2018; 55, pp. 1525-1540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098017716856]
46. Zhu, J.M. Path-dependent institutional change to collective land rights: The collective entrenched in urbanizing Guangzhou. J. Urban Aff.; 2018; 40, pp. 923-936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1427508]
47. Huang, D.Q.; Huang, Y.C.; Zhao, X.S.; Liu, Z. How Do Differences in Land Ownership Types in China Affect Land Development? A Case from Beijing. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9010123]
48. Hao, P.; Geertman, S.; Hooimeijer, P.; Sliuzas, R. Spatial Analyses of the Urban Village Development Process in Shenzhen, China. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.; 2013; 37, pp. 2177-2197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01109.x]
49. Lin, Y.L.; De Meulder, B.; Wang, S.F. The interplay of state, market and society in the socio-spatial transformation of "villages in the city" in Guangzhou. Environ. Urban.; 2012; 24, pp. 325-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956247811434362]
50. Uitermark, J.; Duyvendak, J.W.; Kleinhans, R. Gentrification as a governmental strategy: Social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environ. Plan. A; 2007; 39, pp. 125-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a39142]
51. Liu, S.Q.; Yu, Q.; Wei, C. Spatial-Temporal Dynamic Analysis of Land Use and Landscape Pattern in Guangzhou, China: Exploring the Driving Forces from an Urban Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 6675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11236675]
52. Raco, M. Remaking place and securitising space: Urban regeneration and the strategies, tactics and practices of policing in the UK. Urban Stud.; 2003; 40, pp. 1869-1887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000106645]
53. Harvey, D. Between space and time—Reflections on the geographical imagination. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.; 1990; 80, pp. 418-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1990.tb00305.x]
54. Lefebvre, H.; Nicholson-Smith, D. The Production of Space; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1991; Volume 142.
55. Delgado Ramos, G.C. Real Estate Industry as an Urban Growth Machine: A Review of the Political Economy and Political Ecology of Urban Space Production in Mexico City. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11071980]
56. Lopez-Morales, E.; Sanhueza, C.; Espinoza, S.; Ordenes, F.; Orozco, H. Rent gap formation due to public infrastructure and planning policies: An analysis of Greater Santiago, Chile, 2008–2011. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space; 2019; 51, pp. 1536-1557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19852639]
57. Harrison, J. Rethinking City-regionalism as the Production of New Non-State Spatial Strategies: The Case of Peel Holdings Atlantic Gateway Strategy. Urban Stud.; 2014; 51, pp. 2315-2335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098013493481]
58. Smith, N. Gentrification and the Rent Gap. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.; 1987; 77, pp. 462-465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00171.x]
59. He, S.J.; Wu, F.L. Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: A case study of Xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. J. Urban Aff.; 2005; 27, pp. 1-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00222.x]
60. Hu, F.Z.Y. Industrial capitalisation and spatial transformation in Chinese cities: Strategic repositioning, state-owned enterprise capitalisation, and the reproduction of urban space in Beijing. Urban Stud.; 2015; 52, pp. 2799-2821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098015590989]
61. Liu, G.; Chen, S.; Gu, J. Urban renewal simulation with spatial, economic and policy dynamics: The rent-gap theory-based model and the case study of Chongqing. Land Use Policy; 2019; 86, pp. 238-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.038]
62. Liu, R.; Wong, T.C.; Liu, S.H. Peasants’ counterplots against the state monopoly of the rural urbanization process: Urban villages and ’small property housing’ in Beijing, China. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space; 2012; 44, pp. 1219-1240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a44294]
63. Wu, F.L.; Zhang, F.Z.; Webster, C. Informality and the Development and Demolition of Urban Villages in the Chinese Peri-urban Area. Urban Stud.; 2013; 50, pp. 1919-1934. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012466600]
64. Lai, Y.N.; Tang, B.S.; Chen, X.S.; Zheng, X. Spatial determinants of land redevelopment in the urban renewal processes in Shenzhen, China. Land Use Policy; 2021; 103, 105330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105330]
65. Zhang, X.; Hu, J.; Skitmore, M.; Leung, B.Y.P. Inner-City Urban Redevelopment in China Metropolises and the Emergence of Gentrification: Case of Yuexiu, Guangzhou. J. Urban Plan. Dev.; 2014; 140, 05014004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000169]
66. Wu, F.; Li, L.H.; Han, S.Y. Social Sustainability and Redevelopment of Urban Villages in China: A Case Study of Guangzhou. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10072116]
67. Zhang, S.H.; De Roo, G.; Rauws, W. Understanding self-organization and formal institutions in peri-urban transformations: A case study from Beijing. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci.; 2020; 47, pp. 287-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2399808319888223]
68. He, S.J.; Wu, F.L. China’s Emerging Neoliberal Urbanism: Perspectives from Urban Redevelopment. Antipode; 2009; 41, pp. 282-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00673.x]
69. Wu, F.L. Planning centrality, market instruments: Governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurialism. Urban Stud.; 2018; 55, pp. 1383-1399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098017721828]
70. Wu, F.L. The state acts through the market: ‘State entrepreneurialism’ beyond varieties of urban entrepreneurialism. Dialogues Hum. Geogr.; 2020; 10, pp. 326-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2043820620921034]
71. Wu, F.L.; Phelps, N.A. (Post)suburban development and state entrepreneurialism in Beijing’s outer suburbs. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space; 2011; 43, pp. 410-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a43125]
72. Yuan, D.; Bao, H.; Yau, Y.; Skitmore, M. 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.; 2020; 146, 05020014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000594]
73. Song, Y.; Zenou, Y.; Ding, C. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water: The role of urban villages in housing rural migrants in China. Urban Stud.; 2008; 45, pp. 313-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098007085965]
74. Zheng, H.W.; Shen, G.Q.; Wang, H. A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat Int.; 2014; 41, pp. 272-279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.08.006]
75. Lai, Y.N.; Peng, Y.; Li, B.; Lin, Y.L. Industrial land development in urban villages in China: A property rights perspective. Habitat Int.; 2014; 41, pp. 185-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.08.004]
76. Cai, M.N.; Sun, X. Institutional bindingness, power structure, and land expropriation in China. World Dev.; 2018; 109, pp. 172-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.019]
77. Mcguirk, P.M.; Maclaran, A. Changing approaches to urban planning in an ‘entrepreneurial city’: The case of Dublin. European Plan. Stud.; 2001; 9, pp. 437-457.
78. Hackworth, J.; Smith, N. The changing state of gentrification. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr.; 2001; 92, pp. 464-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00172]
79. Lai, Y.N.; Tang, B.S. Institutional barriers to redevelopment of urban villages in China: A transaction cost perspective. Land Use Policy; 2016; 58, pp. 482-490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.009]
80. Yuan, D.H.; Yau, Y.; Bao, H.J.; Liu, Y.S.; Liu, T. Anatomizing the Institutional Arrangements of Urban Village Redevelopment: Case Studies in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11123376]
81. Shih, M. Rethinking displacement in peri-urban transformation in China. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space; 2017; 49, pp. 389-406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16670158]
82. Chen, Y.; Qu, L. Emerging Participative Approaches for Urban Regeneration in Chinese Megacities. J. Urban Plan. Dev.; 2020; 146, 04019029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000550]
83. Wong, S.W.; Chen, X.; Tang, B.-S.; Liu, J. Neoliberal State Intervention and the Power of Community in Urban Regeneration: An Empirical Study of Three Village Redevelopment Projects in Guangzhou, China. J. Plan. Educ. Res.; 2021; pp. 457-473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X21994661]
84. Tong, D.; Wu, Y.; Maclachlan, I.; Zhu, J. The role of social capital in the collective-led development of urbanising villages in China: The case of Shenzhen. Urban Stud.; 2021; 58, pp. 3335-3353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098021993353]
85. Zhang, L.; Lin, Y.; Hooimeijer, P.; Geertman, S. Heterogeneity of public participation in urban redevelopment in Chinese cities: Beijing versus Guangzhou. Urban Stud.; 2020; 57, pp. 1903-1919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098019862192]
86. Sun, Y.; Lin, J.; Chan, R.C.K. Pseudo use value and output legitimacy of local growth coalitions in China: A case study of the Liede redevelopment project in Guangzhou. Cities; 2017; 61, pp. 9-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.018]
87. Weber, R. Extracting value from the city: Neoliberalism and urban redevelopment. Antipode; 2002; 34, pp. 519-540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00253]
88. Lovering, J. The relationship between urban regeneration and neoliberalism: Two presumptuous theories and a research agenda. Int. Plan. Stud.; 2007; 12, pp. 343-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563470701745504]
89. Hwang, J.; Sampson, R.J. Divergent pathways of gentrification: Racial inequality and the social order of renewal in Chicago neighborhoods. Am. Sociol. Rev.; 2014; 79, pp. 726-751. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122414535774]
90. Phillips, M. Counterurbanisation and rural gentrification: An exploration of the terms. Popul. Space Place; 2010; 16, pp. 539-558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp.570]
91. Longo, A.; Campbell, D. The Determinants of Brownfields Redevelopment in England. Environ. Resour. Econ.; 2017; 67, pp. 261-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9985-y]
92. Ahluwalia, I.J. Urban governance in India. J. Urban Aff.; 2019; 41, pp. 83-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1271614]
93. Klusáček, P.; Alexandrescu, F.; Osman, R.; Malý, J.; Kunc, J.; Dvořák, P.; Frantál, B.; Havlíček, M.; Krejčí, T.; Martinát, S. Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy; 2018; 73, pp. 29-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.007]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.