Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal: A Holistic and State of the Art Literature Review

Abstract

In the new era of sustainable urban development, neighbourhood renewal has received increasing attention. Social capital, which can be defined as the value embedded in the relationship between residents, plays a significant role in the process of neighbourhood renewal. However, within the current neighbourhood renewal knowledge domain, there is a lack of clear and systematic understanding of the various components that make up social capital, how they are formed, and how they impact neighbourhood renewal. With the rise in neighbourhood renewal projects worldwide, it has become increasingly important to facilitate better knowledge in this area. To this end, this study focuses on filling this knowledge gap. First, based on the review of 84 journal papers related to social capital in neighbourhood renewal, a research framework is developed for analysing social capital in the context of neighbour renewal. Using this framework as a lens, a critical review of the literature is then conducted. Finally, through an in-depth discussion, this study presents the main concepts of social capital, its formulation and its association with neighbourhood renewal. This review paper can be used as an important reference for researchers globally interested in the topic of social capital in neighbourhood renewal.

1. Introduction

Neighbourhood renewal has become one of the most important strategies for urban development [1]. As an effective means for maintaining social sustainability, the topic of neighbourhood renewal has received ongoing attention from researchers and academics [2]. Neighbourhood renewal is defined as a strategy that uses a holistic approach to improve deprived neighbourhoods by focusing on a series of fundamental problems and examining them from a sustainability perspective [3]. Neighbourhood renewal can help the members of the local communities to live and work in a better environment. Many cities around the world are now embracing this strategy to improve land values and environmental quality. Particularly, the old inner-city neighbourhoods have experienced a redevelopment process which promotes the quality of living in older neighbourhoods to catch up with other areas of the city [4].

Although neighbourhood renewal is in full swing in cities worldwide, conflicts within neighbourhood renewal projects remain an important deterrent to their success. Empirical evidence highlights several challenges which include conflicts between the public and private sectors [5], issues related to population dynamics and gentrification [6], and disharmony among different interest groups [7]. For example, in China, policies in many cities state that a new neighbourhood programme requires the full approval of the residents before it can be implemented [8,9]. This means that the disapproval of a few residents could lead to the project being put on hold. In 2010, eight old neighbourhood areas were included in the first batch of urban renewal plans put forth by the government in Shenzhen. Ten years on, plans for four of these neighbourhood areas are still being negotiated and work has only just begun on the renewal of the other four projects [10]. One of the core reasons that prevented the adoption of the renewal proposals was the difference of opinions among the residents and their willingness to participate in these programs. Similarly, in many other neighbourhood renewal projects in China, it can be seen that the resident-led renewal of older neighbourhoods has issues of non-participation and inaction on the part of the grassroots governments, whereas the private companies have been unsuccessful in obtaining government approval for collecting property fees and renewal costs from the residents.

Adverse relationships within both homogeneous and heterogeneous stakeholder groups can hinder the completion of renewal projects [11]. Therefore, cooperation is seen as one of the primary goals of neighbourhood renewal projects for ensuring the long-term development of the community.

Social capital can be defined as the goodwill available to individuals or groups and it lies in the structure of their social relationships [12]. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, social capital can help communities establish a social context, which can generate social norms and general trust, and consequently contribute toward cooperative behaviour [13,14]. However, high levels of social capital among homogeneous groups may lead to cognitive lock-ins resulting in divergent opinions and conflicts [15]. This phenomenon is often observed in renewal projects, and it has affected their successful completion. This, to a large extent, explains the occurrence of conflicts and non-cooperation in the renewal process described in the example provided above. Moreover, the gradual development of the relationships between the government, businesses, and residents in the renewal process influences the cooperation that can be achieved, and ultimately, it enables the successful completion of the renewal projects. Therefore, social capital in neighbourhoods is critical to the success of renewal projects [16].

Current studies have now begun to examine the collaboration and the interaction between multiple stakeholders in neighbourhood renewal. However, there are limited studies that have measured the quality and performance of these collaborations from the perspective of social capital. There are two major research gaps. Firstly, there is still a lack of consensus between scholars regarding the concept of social capital. The concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal is still ambiguous because researchers from different disciplines have not come to an agreement on how it can be defined. For example, it is still unclear whether social capital is a collective asset or an individual asset, if it is functional or not, and if it occurs at the micro- or macro-level? These questions remain unanswered within social capital theory, and this is the result of disparate forms of social capital that are defined in various research contexts. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, a universal concept of social capital is indeed viable as well as essential. It is viable because the types of stakeholders in neighbourhood renewal are already known, which means that the types of relationships among stakeholders are also predetermined. Considering that these relationships are major resources of social capital, they can facilitate establishing a universal concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Establishing a universal concept is essential because not only can it provide researchers with a better direction to explore this research area, but also, having a clear definition allows better analysis of social capital in neighbourhood renewal projects that can contribute towards improving the value from these projects.

Secondly, the way that social capital is examined and governed in the context of neighbourhood renewal needs to be explored further. Although there has been some notable research in this area, some gaps remain. For example, Aldrich and Meyer, from the perspective of social capital, presented several policy recommendations for community resilience through instruments such as group meetings, time banking, and community currency [17]. However, the proposed instruments cannot always be directly applied in the context of neighbourhood renewal. This is because current studies focus primarily on improving the community goals in neighbourhood renewal projects while ignoring some of the key project management goals. It is important to note that successful neighbourhood renewal projects require not only community management objectives but also construction project management objectives to be fulfilled [18,19]. Therefore, to assess whether project goals have been achieved, it is important that an integrated approach focussing on community goals as well as project management targets is used.

This paper aims to define and explain the concept of social capital in the context of neighbourhood renewal and with this, present an analysis framework to assess project performance from the perspective of social capital theory.

This research is conducted in two parts. The first part describes the literature review methodology and then, develops a research framework which is used as a lens to explore the relevant body of selected papers for analysing social capital in the context of neighbourhood renewal. The second part of the research provides a critical review of the existing knowledge to scrutinise and define social capital and the role it plays in neighbourhood renewal. Through a rigorous analysis of the literature, this study presents a discussion on three key questions:

(i)

How can social capital be defined in neighbourhood renewal?

(ii)

How is social capital formed during the neighbourhood renewal process?

(iii)

How do social capital and neighbourhood renewal impact each other?

Answering these questions will provide some important contributions to this new research area. This study will serve as an important reference for researchers globally that are interested in this increasingly important topic within social sustainability and urban development. Specifically, it will provide the important groundwork for future research with a better and clearer definition of what social capital means for neighbourhood renewal. Moreover, answering the key research questions will help practitioners assess project performance through the lens of social capital, which can enable project teams to better manage neighbourhood renewal projects.

2. Literature Search and Research Framework Development

Papers were collected from Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection which includes A&HCI, SSCI, ESCI, CPCI-SSH, CPCI-S, and SCI-expanded databases. The time span for the search was set from 2001 to 2022. The keywords used in the search were drawn from the relevant literature [20] that discussed the definition and concepts of social capital and neighbourhood renewal. Previous research has used a wide range of interchangeable terms when referring to social capital and neighbourhood renewal. A list of terms that are used interchangeably and in combination was noted and entered as keywords in the WoS database. These included: ‘social capital’ or ‘reciprocity’ or ‘informal control’ or ‘trust’ or ‘social cohesion’ or ‘social organisation’ or ‘social interaction’ or ‘social network’, and ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘neighborhood’ or ‘city’ or ‘urban’ or ‘community’ or ‘block’, and ‘renewal’ or ‘regeneration’. A total of 834 papers were retrieved.

The first round of screening was then done based on three criteria: (i) the written language, (ii) the document type, and (iii) relevance. Only papers written in English were considered. Moreover, only peer-reviewed conference papers and journal articles were selected to ensure the reliability of the papers to be analysed. The abstracts of these papers were browsed to ensure the topic of the paper was related to social capital and neighbourhood renewal. Based on the above criteria, 699 papers were excluded.

The remaining 135 papers were further refined through the second round of screening which involved carefully reviewing the abstracts, keywords, and introduction sections of the papers. From this screening process, it was seen that whereas some articles did touch on the topic of neighbourhood renewal and social capital, their focus was not directly relevant to our research. Thus, a further 51 papers were excluded. A total of 84 remaining papers were then used in the analysis.

With the papers selected for analysis, the research framework was designed specifically aiming at answering the three research questions posed in this study. In doing so, firstly this paper drew from Esser’s classification of social capital [21]. According to Esser, social capital can be divided into ‘relational capital’ (individual) and ‘system capital’ (collective) [21]. Esser argued that system capital, which includes trust, system morality, and system control, has an influence on the creation of individual social capital. This means that system social capital can help to generate an individual’s social capital. Therefore, using Esser’s argument, this study identified system capital as the formulation of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Moreover, we replaced social structure with system control in order to make the formulation elements more meaningful for neighbourhood renewal projects. In addition to Esser, this study also drew from the theoretical framework proposed by Esperanza et al. to define the classification of individual social capital. This includes three categories: (i) structural social capital, (ii) relational social capital, and (iii) cognitive social capital [22]. In particular, structural social capital consists of three subcategories: bonding, bridging, and linking social capital. The concepts and meaning of these different types of social capital are discussed in detail in the following sections

A review of the title and abstract of the selected papers was conducted. From this process, it was evident that previous research could in fact be classified into two categories: (i) research focusing on the positive effects of social capital on neighbourhood renewal and (ii) research on the negative effects of social capital on neighbourhood renewal. This was incorporated in the research framework particularly for examining associations between social capital and neighbourhood renewal.

The research framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

With the research framework developed, the next step was to carry out reference clustering which aided in getting a clear insight into the relevant research done on the topic. This was done by classifying the focus of each of the selected papers across the categories within our research framework (as shown in Appendix A). The main findings drawn from each paper are shown in Appendix B. From this exercise, it was seen that previous research preferred to analyse bonding, bridging social capital, and linking social capital, whereas most research focused on the role of trust, social norm, and social structure in the formulation of individual social capital. In the following sections, we focus on explaining why this phenomenon occurs.

3. Critical Review

3.1. The Concept of Social Capital in the Context of Neighbour Renewal

In order to understand and define the concept of social capital in the context of neighbour renewal, the first step was to examine how previous research has explained this concept (as shown in Appendix C). Generally, it was seen that the definition of social capital in neighbourhood renewal was derived from social capital theory. Moreover, in examining existing definitions, two conflicting arguments could be clearly identified.

The first argument stemmed from the differences between structuralism and functionalism. From the perspective of structuralism, several scholars have defined social capital as the outcomes generated from social networks [23,24,25,26]. Within this argument, social capital was considered to be significantly associated with interactions among group members, whether they were from homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. This notion comes from the definition by scholars who have drawn from the social capital theory. Bourdieu was the first to define social capital from the perspective of networks [27]. Bourdieu suggested that social capital is related to the durability of the network and institutionalised relationships. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, scholars tend to define social capital in terms of the frequency of interactions between residents and other social organisations or enterprises, or in the case of community participation, the level of communication between residents and government [28]. Therefore, many scholars define social capital in neighbourhood renewal drawing from Putnam [29], who classified it as bonding social capital (relationships among homogeneous groups), bridging social capital (relationships among heterogeneous groups) and linking social capital (relationships between different power classes). From the perspective of functionalism, scholars have described social capital based on its function [30,31,32,33,34]. This also comes from the definition proposed by scholars using social capital theory. Social capital was first defined from the perspective of its function by Coleman [35]. Coleman suggested that social capital can facilitate certain actions of group members. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, social capital is always seen as the sum of trust, reciprocity, and social norm among residents to facilitate cooperation and coordination in the community. Moreover, it can also be clearly seen that structuralism focuses on whether there is a relationship, and if there is, what are the types of relationships that are present. Conversely, functionalism focuses on the characteristics of relationships. These conflicting views have led to a rather odd phenomenon, where, on the one hand, studies that have defined social capital through structuralism consider it to be the relationships and interaction between residents and other organisations while using bonding, bridging, and linking to classify social capital. On the other hand, others from the perspective of functionalism have used trust and the degree of reciprocity to measure the level of social capital.

The second conflicting argument about the concept comes from the differences in views regarding social capital being an asset either at the individual level or at the collective level. This debate has existed in social capital theory literature for a long time. Liu, et al. suggested that sociologists prefer to describe social capital as an individual asset that is influenced by one’s own position, whereas political scientists prefer to define social capital as a collective property of communities [36]. This conflict is still unresolved but is now moving in another direction—a growing number of scholars believe that social capital exists at both individual and collective levels.

To explore these two conflicting views, this study adopted the propositions of Esperanza et al. and Esser [21,22]. Specifically, this study classified social capital into three categories, as described in Section 2: structural social capital, relational social capital, and cognitive social capital. Structural social capital (which is represented in Figure 2 by lines between the nodes) refers to the various relationship networks that facilitate actions between individuals and organisations [37]. Structural social capital includes: (i) bonding social capital, which refers to relationships within a homogeneous group (which is represented in Figure 2 by lines within the same colour block, and blocks of the same colour represent homogeneous groups); (ii) bridging social capital, which refers to relationships between heterogeneous group (which is represented in Figure 2 by lines between different colour blocks); and (iii) linking social capital, which refers to relationships between different levels of power (which is represented in Figure 2 by lines between different levels). The relational social capital (which is represented in Figure 2 as the thickness of lines between nodes) refers to the attachment strength among members of a social network [37]. The cognitive social capital (which is represented in Figure 2 as the same cluster of nodes) refers to social systems in which resources lead to commonly shared goals [37].

There are two reasons for designing the conceptual framework in this way. First, structural social capital contains bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, which will satisfy the need of the perspective of structuralism. Meanwhile, relational social capital contains trust and reciprocity at the individual level, which will satisfy the need of providing the functionalism perspective. In addition, during neighbourhood renewal, two strangers may build relationships because of common interests. Cognitive social capital can be used to describe this type of social capital. Second, this conceptual framework only focuses on the individual level and does not refer to the collective level. This conceptual framework is established based on the definition of individual-level social capital proposed by Esser [21], which helps this framework provide better clarity regarding the debate on social capital being individual or collective [21]. The collective-level social capital is discussed in the next section.

In the context of neighbourhood renewal, the attributes of the types of social capital (presented in Figure 2) have been redefined and discussed as follows:

(i)

The structural dimension usually stresses the control advantages provided both by the value of the information and the structural location of the social network [38]. Structural social capital, which includes bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, is characterised as playing an essential role in community engagement and collaboration. The imbalance of structural social capital among different stakeholders may negatively impact stakeholder collaboration and become a barrier to community participation [7,39].

(ii)

Relational social capital focuses on informal social ties with stakeholders and the strength of relationships [40]. Among different types of informal social ties, the strength of neighbourhood ties plays an important role during the process of neighbourhood renewal. However, it should be noted that the neighbourhood tie is a unique type of relationship, which is reserved for those living in close proximity and is different from friendship as usually understood. We do not know if our neighbours are like us (or unlike us) and how they feel about us, but as they live close to us, it requires us to pay attention to our relationship with them [41,42]. However, there are very few studies that have noted the unique characteristics of neighbourhood ties. Souza proposed that future studies on neighbourhood ties should focus on their unique characteristics such as helpfulness, friendliness, and privacy respect [40].

(iii)

Cognitive social capital may incline individuals to take mutually beneficial collective action [43]. Within the context of neighbourhood renewal, considering the variety of interests and of people living in an area, we cannot expect a common understanding to emerge in the process of community engagement. At least, there may initially be differences of opinion and conflicts [7]. Focusing on this issue, the communicative planning theory is used to highlight the consensus building in community planning decisions [44]. Several cities have used this approach to promote related policies. For example, Chicago’s South Side Planning Board (SSPB) focuses on the notion of ‘consensus’ and the development of a climate in which means are available for individuals to ‘act together in concert for a common goal’ [45]. Thus, the cognitive social capital has an important effect in neighbourhood renewal and may even affect the structural and relational social capital [46].

The debate on the concept and classification of social capital has been going on for a long time. The representative debate is whether reciprocity and special trust towards someone should be part of social capital. This study proposes that this debate stems from different perspectives on social capital: structuralism and functionalism. This study attempts to propose a conceptual framework of social capital in neighbourhood renewal by integrating two perspectives.

3.2. Formulation of Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal

As mentioned above, the formulation of social capital in neighbourhood renewal includes three basic components: trust, norms, and social structure.

Firstly, trust among residents in neighbourhood renewal mainly refers to generalised trust. According to Arrow, it is beneficial for individuals to have some trust in each other’s words [47]. It is thus vital to understand the particular role of trust in the context of neighbourhood renewal. Different kinds of trust have been studied by previous research, such as generalised social trust (i.e., trust towards your neighbourhood or unknown people), trust in public services, and knowledge-based trust [48]. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, trust can be divided into two categories: trust between communities and local authorities or service agencies, and trust among the residents.

In regard to trust between communities and service agencies or local authorities, previous studies have mainly focused on the effects of trust on community engagement [49]. A plethora of studies have found that residents’ well-being and their willingness to participate in community affairs are associated with government trustworthiness [50]. Establishing trust between communities and government is important for local authorities and service agencies to gain support and work with communities in the neighbourhood renewal process [51]. Past experiences in the communities [52,53] and a lack of information and transparency [54] may be the sources of mistrust.

In regard to trust among residents, almost all related research has committed to the view that trust is a way to realise community solidarity [55,56]. Previous studies have proven that trust is associated with several elements, i.e., social cooperation [57], social cohesion [58], and interconnection within communities [31].

In summary, the trust between communities and local authorities or service agencies, and the trust among the residents should be covered when analysing social capital generation.

Secondly, norms among residents in neighbourhood renewal refer to the level of obligation, democratic orientation, and tolerance that will guide someone’s behaviour [59]. Normally, participating in groups and networks may lead members to copy attitudes and behaviour because of social norms [60]. This confirms the conclusions of previous research that highlight that ‘social capital and social norms are positively correlated’ [61]. In the context of social norms, a neighbourhood can be defined as an entity sharing common norms [54,62]. According to Mathers, the concept of neighbourhood as an aggregation of residents with similar norms, values, and customs has been challenged by neighbourhood renewal [53]. Neighbourhood renewal efforts involve diverse and complex combinations of different scales of stakeholders, social norms, processes, and programs [63]. Thus, it is vital to understand social norms in order to deal with unnecessary costs and ensure community acceptance in the process before neighbourhood renewal [64].

It should be noted that research on social capital in neighbourhood renewal often tends to ignore the important role of norms. The statements about norms in neighbourhood renewal derived from the few previous studies could be summarised in two aspects. On the one hand, social norms in neighbourhoods could improve resident interaction and improve social organisation [24]. On the other hand, social norms are regarded as the reason for social cohesion and of the confinements on freedom of residents [32,65], which may hinder the renewal process. These findings are far from adequate to analyse social norms in neighbourhood renewal. According to Dalton and Sonja, four dimensions of social norms should be considered in the future: the norm of participation, the norm of autonomy, the norm of social order, and the norm of social citizenship [66,67].

Thirdly, for social structure, Coleman proposed that it can facilitate certain forms of social capital [35]. Social structure is seen as the source of obligations and expectations of reciprocation [68]. Social structure is normally divided into the macro- and micro-social levels [69].

The macro-social level can be described in terms of income inequality, residential mobility, concentrated poverty, and formal institutional structure [70]. In the context of neighbourhood renewal, the composition of the community actors is complex, and renewal activities inevitably bring about changes in the structure of the residents [71]. Previous research has mostly focused on three aspects: (i) community income structure, (ii) distribution of different types of actors, and (iii) age distribution.

(i)

Community income structure.

The social network normally has greater effects on the poor [72]. Warren and Saegert stated that the lack of other valuable resources makes the poor more likely to rely on social capital [73].

(ii)

Distribution of different types of actors.

Neighbourhood renewal normally brings new residents and other stakeholders into the neighbourhood. The participation of these new actors leads to the incorporation of individuals into recognisable institutional structures [74]. That means neighbourhood renewal will develop a new form of social capital in the old neighbourhood by transforming the distribution of various types of stakeholders in the neighbourhood [24].

(iii)

Age distribution.

Most old people do hope to be ‘aging in place’, which means being able to live in their own homes and communities safely, independently, and comfortably, no matter one’s age, income, or level of ability [75]. The older residents devote more time to their communities than younger workforce residents, which means they may have more impact on the formulation of social capital [76].

The micro-social level reflects the social network within the individual, mediating macro-level influences [69]. The field of environmental psychology generally analyses the micro-social level impact [77]. Research on the micro-level has mostly focused on the mechanisms and causal pathways through which social capital, physical environment, place attachment, and informal ties may be related [78,79]. In the community, micro-level social structures promote group identity, mutual understanding, and interactions [24,80,81].

This study views collective-level social capital (trust, norms, and social structure) as formative elements of residents’ individual social capital. Although these elements have been discussed many times in previous studies in the field of social capital, the boundaries for trust, norms, and social structure are still blurred. What should the actors of trust include? Do social norms include only reciprocity? What should be included in the social structure? These questions are still not well answered. Based on this, this study systematically developed a system of social capital formation elements in the context of neighbourhood renewal.

3.3. The Association between Social Capital and Neighbourhood Renewal

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

3.3.1. The Positive Association

According to Shen et al., the profiteering of real estate and land financing is in the process of losing its financial foundation [82]. As the marginal value of land declines, the logic of neighbourhood renewal projects has shifted from economic development to community construction [19,82]. Therefore, social capital can be defined as the driving force of neighbourhood renewal [82]. Normally, social capital promotes neighbourhood renewal in two ways: consensus building and improving efficiency.

(i)

Consensus building

According to Innes, local community planning requires building consensus through the cooperation of multiple stakeholders [44]. Swyngedouw notes that urban governance has been depoliticised, moving away from implementing outcomes that represent democratic decision-making to building consensus among multiple public and private stakeholders [83]. High social capital can contribute to a stakeholder’s sense of shared group membership with another person, which may motivate all parties to insist on an agreement and coordinate their behaviour on the issue at hand [84]. Previous research has found that high social capital can help deal with difficult problems during the renewal process, such as social exclusion, complex, intertwined ownership, and other socio-economic issues [85]. These problems are mostly generated by the lack of novel cooperation processes and harmonious relationships.

(ii)

Enhancing project efficiency

Social capital generated in the historical context creates a sense of commitment, attachment to localities, and trust that facilitates the adoption of laws and regulations for management, which may improve the process of decision-making in neighbourhood renewal projects more effectively [55]. Previous research has found that it is vital for local politicians and officials to understand community norms to deal with unnecessary costs [64]. Moreover, if residents can develop a sense of trust in public institutions, local governments will work with communities more easily than before [86]. Furthermore, a renewal project with high social capital may help to cope with difficulties, whereas a project with low social capital will not cope well [87]. Trust in the community can also facilitate collaboration and residents’ well-being [58,88]. The higher the level of social capital, the more prosperous social cooperation and more effective public policies [57].

3.3.2. The Negative Association

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

Previous research is gradually realizing that higher social capital is not always better. The dark side of social capital is gradually getting the attention of researchers. However, it also raises questions about how to measure social capital and how to assess the level of social capital. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on this question. As a review study, this study compiles research on the light and dark sides of social capital in neighbourhood renewal to provide insights for future research.

4. Conclusions and Avenues for Future Research

Neighbourhood renewal is more than a physical transformation of neighbourhood space; rather, it is also a reestablishment of social networks, which involves multiple stakeholders and various types of relationships [93]. This paper reviewed existing studies on social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Additionally, this paper examined and discussed the formulation and concept of social capital in the context of neighbourhood renewal and analysed the association between neighbourhood renewal and social capital. The comprehensive review provided an analysis framework of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. The proposed framework is an invaluable effort in forming a better conceptual and practical understanding of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. The theoretical, managerial implication and future research is as follows:

The concept of social capital in neighbourhood renewal is complex. Scholars have debated the concept of social capital for several decades and yet they have not shared a unified view about the assessment framework for social capital. Based on the analysis presented in the previous sections, we draw a basic analysis framework for neighbourhood renewal. Specifically, due to the special role of residents in neighbourhood renewal, this study analyses social capital from the perspective of residents. As for the classification of social capital, this study has attempted to clarify what social capital means in the neighbourhood renewal context. Several studies have identified social cohesion, characteristics of social networks, or trust among stakeholders as the main components that form social capital. However, this study has found that previous research has often misused the concept of social capital at the collective asset level and the individual asset level, and the perspective of functionalism and structuralism. Therefore, based on social capital theory, this study proposes that social capital in neighbourhood renewal should be classified into three categories: structural dimension, relational dimension, and cognitive dimension. The collective asset level is seen as the formulation of elements of social capital, such as trust, norms, and social structures.

This study has proposed that individual social capital in neighbourhood renewal is formed by trust, social norms, and social structure in the community. Specifically, the formulation of social capital is proven to be formed based on the historical context of neighbourhoods. Several studies have found that the social capital of residents is heavily influenced by past experiences [52,53]. The historical context of neighbourhoods, combined with low rents and low housing prices, has led to a concentration of vulnerable groups in specific neighbourhoods that are defined by low-income households and weak social networks. Therefore, a study of social capital in neighbourhood renewal cannot be done without paying attention to the wider historically specific context. In addition, formative factors should be considered as antecedents of an individual’s social capital in neighbourhood renewal. Therefore, when measuring formation factors such as trust, social norms, and social structure, their measurement factors should be considered before the old neighbourhood renewal project. In other words, the formation factor is the collective level of social capital in the historical context of the neighbourhood rather than social capital triggered by the renewal project.

The view that ‘the higher the social capital, the better it is’ is not necessarily true for older neighbourhood renewal projects. Based on previous research on the association between social capital and renewal projects, this study found that with high social capital, individuals may benefit from mutual cooperation and help within an array of social networks [94]. However, the higher-than-average level of social capital of residents in neighbourhoods may hinder the implementation of the renewal project. According to Bull and Jones, higher social capital does not always lead to more transparency and democracy in the process of renewal projects and on the contrary, the past political history and pre-existing social networks play an important role [95]. As Powell and Simith argued, the ties that bind may also turn into the ties that blind [96]. Previous studies have found that when actors are overly reliant on their group members, they may try to achieve harmony within the organisation by excluding of members with different opinions [15]. Therefore, the action and interest of individuals may be reined in and beliefs, along with order, are imparted to organisation members, which may contribute to a wrong social structure [97]. According to Gabbay and Leenders, overinvestment in social capital in a wrong social structure can result in negative returns [98]. Furthermore, a high level of social capital is often related to social exclusion. A close-knit organisation will try to exclude outsiders. This may explain why sometimes government officials and corporations cannot find a suitable way to communicate with residents and why several scholars argue that the project manager should obtain trust from residents first before project implementation [99]. This could also explain why residents are often excluded in the traditional elite decision-making model. The high level of average social capital among homogeneous groups may lead them to protect their self-interests [100]. McLean argued that there is a potential for social capital to exclude people from heterogeneous groups [101]. This means that instead of always aiming for high social capital, we should seek to achieve a more modest level of social capital in neighbourhood renewal projects.

Neighbourhood renewal has become normalised in urban redevelopment. Thus, social capital in neighbourhood renewal has also become an important issue of urban management. This paper advocates establishing a framework of social capital in neighbourhood renewal and proposes four research directions.

• Future research should comprehensively analyse various kinds of social capital in neighbourhood renewal. The existing studies have generally been selective and have focused on a single or some selected elements to analyse social capital because they lack a unified analysis framework. The research of multiple elements and levels of social capital may help to comprehensively understand the conflicts and collaboration during the process of neighbourhood renewal.
• Future research should analyse the association between social capital components and their formulation and the performance of neighbourhood renewal. There is a need for potential insights to be tested against their causality.
• Future research should investigate empirically the contextual factors on social capital in neighbourhood renewal. The shape of neighbourhoods varies from country to country and region to region. Accordingly, the formulation and impacts of social capital may have different characteristics. Therefore, further research should try to find more potential contextual factors (e.g., local conditions, degree of autonomy).
• Future research should analyse social capital in neighbourhood renewal as a dynamic process. Although many existing studies have concentrated on the association between renewal project performance and levels of social capital, they have overlooked the dynamic nature of social capital. The changes in individual social relationships, interaction, and trust lead to changes in social capital. There is still a lack of research on the dynamics of social capital and its impact. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the evolution of social capital of various actors in the renewal process, including government-enterprise cooperation, community participation, and so forth, to expedite the completion of neighbourhood renewal.