4.7 Article

Toward community engagement: Can the built environment help? Grassroots participation and communal space in Chinese urban communities

Journal

HABITAT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 46, Issue -, Pages 44-53

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.10.013

Keywords

Communal space; Community participation; Neighborhood attachment; Social capital

Funding

  1. Hong Kong Research Grant Council [HKBU245511]
  2. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41322003, 41271180]
  4. Key Research Institute Foundation at Sun Yat-sen University [10JJD630016, 10JDXM81001, 11ZGXM63001]
  5. Asian Pacific Studies Institute at Duke University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The scholarship in building community capacity by way of cultivating community social capital and community spirit through neighborhood design has spawned heated debates in urban and community studies. This paper contributes to this scholarship by examining the neighborhood contexts of grassroots participation in Chinese contemporary urban communities. In particular, it explores the relationship between neighborhood communal space and community participation, using a city-wide survey of 1809 households in 39 commodity housing estates in the city of Guangzhou. It is found that local residents' participation in community affairs is conditioned by both the social milieu (measured by the overall level of social cohesion) and the physical environment (indicated by effects of communal space) of a neighborhood. Notably, communal space exerts positive indirect effects on grassroots participation by facilitating the development of place-based social capital and neighborhood attachment. These findings point to a civic virtue of communal space and provide nascent evidence regarding neighborhood contexts of grassroots participation in urban China. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available