Procedural fairness has long been recognized as critical to citizen acceptance of urban renewal initiatives. However, research examining the underlying mechanisms of this relationship remains limited, hindering effective policy implementation. This study addresses this gap by investigating how relationship quality dimensions—specifically citizen satisfaction, citizen recognition, and citizen trust—mediate the link between procedural fairness and citizen acceptance. Drawing on survey data from 409 respondents across three communities in China that experienced urban renewal projects and employing structural equation modeling (SEM) and artificial neural network (ANN) analysis, our findings demonstrate that procedural fairness positively influences citizen acceptance, with citizen satisfaction and citizen recognition serving as partial mediators in this relationship, while citizen trust shows no significant mediating effect. These findings advance the literature by elucidating the distinct procedural fairness pathways through which citizens develop acceptance toward urban renewal policies, while also revealing the nuanced roles that different relational dimensions play in this process.
AhmadR.NawazM. R.IshaqM. I.KhanM. M.AshrafH. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1015921.
2.
AlbrightJ. J.ParkH. M. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CALIS (Working paper). The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University.
3.
AliceM. (2015). Fitting a neural network in R Neuralnet package. DataScience+2016.
4.
AljawarnehN. M. S.AtanT. (2018). Linking tolerance to workplace incivility, service innovative, knowledge hiding, and job search behavior: The mediating role of employee cynicism. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(4), 298–320.
5.
BertramI.BouwmanR.TummersL. (2024). Getting what you expect: How civil servant stereotypes affect citizen satisfaction and perceived performance. Public Administration, 102(4), 1468–1491.
6.
BhattacharyaC. B.SenS. (2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.
7.
Boyd-SwanC. H.MolinaA. D. (2019). Public service integrity and the quality of governance: Examining the role of citizen-administrator value congruence. Public Integrity, 21(3), 229–247.
8.
BradfordB.HohlK.JacksonJ.MacQueenS. (2015). Obeying the rules of the road: Procedural justice, social identity, and normative compliance. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(2), 171–191.
9.
BradfordB.MilaniJ.JacksonJ. (2017). Identity, legitimacy and “making sense” of police use of force. Policing: An International Journal, 40(3), 614–627.
10.
BradfordB.QuintonP. (2014). Self-legitimacy, police culture and support for democratic policing in an English constabulary. British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1023–1046.
11.
CabannesY.MingZ. (2013). Participatory budgeting at scale and bridging the rural−urban divide in Chengdu. Environment & Urbanization, 26(1), 257–275.
12.
ChangD.MengT. (2022). Magnetic effect of government responsiveness on public participation: An empirical analysis based on the provincial Leadership Message Board in China. Chinese Public Administration Review, 14(2), 94–106.
13.
ChenH.WangJ.HanT.JinX. (2024). Organic renewal of property plots in Chinese cities: Sustainable development of built environment via property value enhancement and digital twin construction. Indoor and Built Environment, 34(1), 7–21.
14.
ChengQ.SunY.SongJ.SongL. (2026). Unpacking the role of institutional work in the dynamics of policy legitimacy: The case of demolition policy in China. Chinese Public Administration Review, 1(1), 15396754251413103.
15.
ColquittJ. A.ConlonD. E.WessonM. J.PorterC. O. L.H.NgK. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.
16.
ColquittJ. A.RodellJ. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
17.
ColquittJ. A.ScottB. A.RodellJ. B.LongD. M.ZapataC. P.ConlonD. E.WessonM. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199.
18.
CousseJ. (2021). Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, Article 111107.
19.
De CremerD.TylerT. R. (2005). Managing group behaviour: The interplay between fairness, self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 151–218.
20.
De CremerD.TylerT. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639.
21.
DindarS. (2025). A systematic review of urban regeneration’s impact on sustainable transport: Traffic dynamics, policy responses, and environmental implications. Sustainable Development, 33(S1), 399–426.
22.
DodsonJ. (2006). The “roll” of the state: Government, neoliberalism and housing assistance in four advanced economies. Housing, Theory and Society, 23(4), 224–243.
23.
DowdleM. D. (2006). Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences. Cambridge University Press.
24.
DuT.DuS.WangR. (2022). Social factors and residential satisfaction under urban renewal background: A comparative case study in Chongqing, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 148(4), e05022030.
25.
EarleyA. (2025). Achieving urban regeneration without gentrification? Community enterprises and community assets in the UK. Journal of Urban Affairs, 47(4), 1125–1148.
26.
EsaiassonP.PerssonM.GilljamM.LindholmT. (2019). Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. British Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 291–314.
27.
FifalianaR. M. (2026). A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impact of E-government use on citizens’ trust in government. Chinese Public Administration Review, 82, 23–38.
28.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
29.
FrickV.WestphalM.EscobarO. (2025). Democratic innovation beyond the deliberative paradigm? Introduction to the special issue. Politics, 46(1), 3–14.
30.
FungA. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.
31.
FungA. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522.
32.
GaoX.SunF. (2025). Examining the impact of relative performance information on citizen satisfaction: The moderating role of trust in local government. Public Administration and Development, 45(5), 555–571.
33.
GaoX.ZhouS.SchurrD. (2025). Unveiling and explaining the procedural justice in the policy design of renewable energy siting process in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 53(3), 556–579.
34.
GermannM.MarienS.MuradovaL. (2022). Scaling up? Unpacking the effect of deliberative mini-publics on legitimacy perceptions. Political Studies, 72(2), 677–700.
35.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.JilkeS.OlsenA. L.TummersL. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56.
36.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.KniesE. (2015). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601.
37.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.PorumbescuG.HongB.ImT. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575–586.
38.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
39.
GulevichO.BorovikovaJ.RodionovaM. (2024). The relationship between political procedural justice and attitudes toward the political system: A meta-analysis. Political Psychology, 45(3), 537–557.
40.
HaJ.-C.LeeJ.-W. (2022). Realization of a sustainable high-performance organization through procedural justice: The dual mediating role of organizational trust and organizational commitment. Sustainability, 14(3), 1259.
41.
HairJ. F.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
HerianM. N.HammJ. A.TomkinsA. J.Pytlik ZilligL. M. (2012). Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 815–840.
44.
HonnethA. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT press.
45.
HonnethA. (2014). Disrespect: The normative foundations of critical theory. John Wiley & Sons.
46.
HornungJ.BandelowN. C.VogelerC. S. (2019). Social identities in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 52(2), 211–231.
47.
HržicaR. (2026). Mapping co-creation and co-production in public administration: A scientometric study. Administrative Sciences, 16(1), 55.
48.
HuangH.IntawanC.NicholsonS. P. (2023). In government we trust: Implicit political trust and regime support in China. Perspectives on Politics, 21(4), 1357–1375.
49.
HuiE. C.-m.ChenT.LangW.OuY. (2021). Urban community regeneration and community vitality revitalization through participatory planning in China. Cities, 110, Article 103072.
50.
JamesO. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107–123.
51.
JensenC.PiatakJ. (2023). Public service motivation and trust in government: An examination across the federal, state, and local levels in the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(2), 107–118.
52.
Kevin WangS.-Y.SunI. Y.WuY.ChenF.-L. (2023). Explaining police procedural justice in a democracy: An expanded internal-external model. Police Quarterly, 27(1), 3–30.
53.
KimH.KimH.WoosnamK. M. (2023). Collaborative governance and conflict management in cultural heritage-led regeneration projects: The case of urban Korea. Habitat International, 134, Article 102767.
54.
KimS.RhoE.TeoY. X. J. (2024). Citizen satisfaction research in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(5), 460–485.
55.
KimW. C.MauborgneR. A. (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making: Strategy content implications in the multinational. Organization Science, 6(1), 44–61.
56.
KimY.KimW.KimM. (2014). An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 66, 475–483.
57.
KruegerS.ParkH. (2020). Pathways to citizen participation: Participatory budgeting policy choice by local governments. Chinese Public Administration Review, 11(1), 46–59.
58.
KurlandN. B.EganT. D. (1999). Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcomes, and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 437–458.
59.
LedinghamJ. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198.
60.
LegacyC. (2016). Is there a crisis of participatory planning?Planning Theory, 16(4), 425–442.
61.
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In GergenK. J.GreenbergM. S.WillisR. H. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Springer.
62.
LevineD.Aharon-GutmanM. (2023). There’s no place like real estate: The “Self-gentrification” of homeowners in disadvantaged neighborhoods facing urban regeneration. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 38(2), 775–794.
63.
LiJ. C. M.ZhangS. Y.SunI. Y.HoA. S. K. (2024). Police legitimacy and procedural justice for children and youth: A scoping review of definitions, determinants, and consequences. Frontiers in Sociology, 9, Article 1409080.
64.
LiX.ZhangF.HuiE. C.-m.LangW. (2020). Collaborative workshop and community participation: A new approach to urban regeneration in China. Cities, 102, Article 102743.
65.
LiaoZ.LiuM. (2023). Critical barriers and countermeasures to urban regeneration from the stakeholder perspective: A literature review. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 5, Article 1115648.
66.
LindE. A.KulikC. T.AmbroseM.MariaV. d. V. P. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224–251.
67.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.
68.
LiuB.WangX.XiaN.NiW. (2018). Critical success factors for the management of public participation in urban renewal projects: Perspectives from Governments and the Public in China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(3), Article 04018026.
69.
LiuC.YangL.-Q.NautaM. M. (2013). Examining the mediating effect of supervisor conflict on procedural injustice–job strain relations: The function of power distance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1), 64–74.
70.
LiuG.WeiL.GuJ.ZhouT.LiuY. (2020). Benefit distribution in urban renewal from the perspectives of efficiency and fairness: A game theoretical model and the government’s role in China. Cities, 96, Article 102422.
71.
LiuL.BoumanT.PerlaviciuteG.StegL. (2020). Public participation in decision making, perceived procedural fairness and public acceptability of renewable energy projects. Energy and Climate Change, 1, Article 100013.
72.
LiuY.LiuY.ChenY.LongH. (2010). The process and driving forces of rural hollowing in China under rapid urbanization. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(6), 876–888.
73.
MahmudR. (2024). Determinants of citizen trust in public institutions in Bangladesh. Journal of Developing Societies, 40(4), 531–546.
74.
MartinA.MikołajczakG.OrrR. (2020). Does process matter? Experimental evidence on the effect of procedural fairness on citizens’ evaluations of policy outcomes. International Political Science Review, 43(1), 103–117.
75.
MartínezL.ShortJ.OrtízM. (2015). Citizen satisfaction with public goods and government services in the global urban south: A case study of Cali, Colombia. Habitat International, 49, 84–91.
76.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
77.
MazepusH.van LeeuwenF. (2020). Fairness matters when responding to disasters: An experimental study of government legitimacy. Governance, 33(3), 621–637.
78.
MazerolleL.BennettS.DavisJ.SargeantE.ManningM. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274.
79.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
80.
MorganR. M.HuntS. D. (1994). The Commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
81.
MorgesonF. V.III. (2013). Expectations, disconfirmation, and citizen satisfaction with the US federal government: Testing and expanding the model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 289–305.
82.
MusterdS.OstendorfW. (2008). Integrated urban renewal in The Netherlands: A critical appraisal. Urban Research & Practice, 1(1), 78–92.
83.
NaginD. S.TelepC. W. (2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786.
84.
NieM.FengT. (2025). What drives public participation in urban regeneration? An integrated choice and latent variable analysis. Scientific Reports, 16, 2472.
85.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In WolmanB. B. (Ed.), Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook (pp. 97–146). Springer US.
86.
OhnumaS.YokoyamaM.MizutoriS. (2022). Procedural fairness and expected outcome evaluations in the public acceptance of sustainability policymaking: A case study of multiple stepwise participatory programs to develop an environmental master plan for Sapporo, Japan. Sustainability, 14(6), 3403.
87.
PapadopoulosI.KyriakidisA.DeligiaouriA.KyriakidesA. (2024). The rise of procedural legitimacy of the EU under the juncker commission: The impact of the better regulation agenda. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1424
88.
PhamL.LimbuY. B.LeM. T. T.NguyenN. L. (2023). E-government service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: Evidence from a newly emerging country. Journal of Public Policy, 43(4), 812–833.
89.
PorumbescuG.BelléN.CuccinielloM.NasiG. (2017). Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration, 95(4), 990–1008.
90.
PorumbescuG. A.GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2017). Linking decision-making procedures to decision acceptance and citizen voice: Evidence from two studies. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(8), 902–914.
91.
ProudfootD.LindE. A. (2015). 17 fairness heuristic theory, the uncertainty management model, and fairness at work. In CropanzanoR. S.AmbroseM. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 371–386). Oxford University Press.
92.
RaaphorstN.Van de WalleS. (2020). Trust, fairness, and signaling: Studying the interaction between officials and citizens. In Luoma-ahoV.CanelM. J. (Eds.), The handbook of public sector communication (pp. 59–70). Wiley-Blackwel.
93.
RainisioN.BoffiM.PigaB.StancatoG.FumagalliN. (2024). Community-based participatory research for urban regeneration: Bridging the dichotomies through the exp-EIA method. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), e2877.
94.
RossV. L.FieldingK. S.LouisW. R. (2014). Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-psychological model. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 61–68.
95.
RubinE. V. (2011). Exploring the link between procedural fairness and union membership in the federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(2), 128–142.
96.
RuderA. I.WoodsN. D. (2020). Procedural fairness and the legitimacy of agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 400–414.
97.
SchilkeO.WiedenfelsG.BrettelM.ZuckerL. G. (2017). Interorganizational trust production contingent on product and performance uncertainty. Socio-Economic Review, 15(2), 307–330.
98.
ShenC.WangY.XuY.LiX. (2024). Unveiling citizen-government interactions in urban renewal in China: Spontaneous online opinions, reginal characteristics, and government responsiveness. Cities, 148, Article 104857.
99.
SiegristM. (2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490.
100.
SkitkaL. J.WinquistJ.HutchinsonS. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309–341.
101.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–547.
102.
TanG. W.-H.OoiK.-B.LeongL.-Y.LinB. (2014). Predicting the drivers of behavioral intention to use mobile learning: A hybrid SEM-Neural Networks approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 198–213.
103.
TummersL.BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.
104.
TylerT. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: A rush to judgment?Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 29–53.
105.
TylerT. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.
106.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.
107.
TylerT. R.HuoY. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
108.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). Academic Press.
109.
UralT. (2009). The effects of relationship quality on export performance: A classification of small and medium-sized Turkish exporting firms operating in single export-market ventures. European Journal of Marketing, 43(1–2), 139–168.
110.
Van Der MeerT.HakhverdianA. (2016). Political trust as the evaluation of process and performance: A cross-national study of 42 European countries. Political Studies, 65(1), 81–102.
111.
Van Der VoetJ.Van Den BekeromP. (2025). Performance information, expectations and satisfaction with public service delivery in the context of co-production initiatives. Public Management Review, 27(4), 1157–1178.
112.
Van RyzinG. G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745–760.
113.
Van RyzinG. G. (2013). An experimental test of the expectancy-disconfirmation theory of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 597–614.
114.
Van RyzinG. G.MuzzioD.ImmerwahrS.GulickL.MartinezE. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the american customer satisfaction index model to New York City. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 331–341.
115.
Vigoda-GadotE.MizrahiS. (2008). Public sector management and the democratic ethos: A 5-year study of key relationships in Israel. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 79–107.
116.
WangC.ZhangX. (2024). Governance capacity, social justice, social security, and institutionalized political participation in China: A moderated mediation model. Chinese Public Administration Review, 15(3), 194–206.
117.
WangH.RanB.LiY. (2024). Street-level collaborative governance for urban regeneration: How were conflicts resolved at grassroot level?Journal of Urban Affairs, 46(9), 1723–1743.
118.
WangQ.GuanZ. (2023). Can sunlight disperse mistrust? A meta-analysis of the effect of transparency on citizens’ trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(3), 453–467.
119.
WeblerT. (2025). Legitimacy in practice: Measuring what makes deliberative public participation “good”. In RennO.WeblerT.SchweizerP.-J. (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: A critical review of formats for deliberative policymaking (pp. 11–31). Springer Nature Switzerland.
120.
WellsteadA.HowlettM. (2024). Public value and procedural policy instrument specifications in “design for service”. Policy Design and Practice, 7(2), 144–157.
121.
WilkinsJ. R. (2011). Construction workers’ perceptions of health and safety training programmes. Construction Management and Economics, 29(10), 1017–1026.
122.
WuG.LiuJ. (2023). Extending procedural justice theory to the Chinese context: The role of collective efficacy. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(1), 40–58.
123.
XiaoY.LiH.HuangX.ChangJ. (2025). Can state-led urban regeneration occur without gentrification?Applied Geography, 177, Article 103560.
124.
XieF.LiuG.ZhuangT. (2021). A comprehensive review of urban regeneration governance for developing appropriate governance arrangements. Land, 10(5), 545.
125.
YangK.HolzerM. (2006). The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
126.
YeL.PengX.AnicheL. Q.ScholtenP. H. T.EnsenadoE. M. (2021). Urban renewal as policy innovation in China: From growth stimulation to sustainable development. Public Administration and Development, 41(1), 23–33.
127.
YoungI. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
128.
ZhangJ.-x.GaoY. (2022). From growth coalition to development coalition: A case study of urban renewal governance transformation in Southern Area of Nanjing (SAN), China. Transactions in Planning and Urban Research, 1(1–2), 66–85.
129.
ZhangX.WuY.SkitmoreM.JiangS. (2015). Sustainable infrastructure projects in balancing urban–rural development: Towards the goal of efficiency and equity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 445–454.
130.
ZhaoY.AnN.ChenH.TaoW. (2021). Politics of urban renewal: An anatomy of the conflicting discourses on the renovation of China’s urban village. Cities, 111, Article 103075.
131.
ZhengH. W.ShenG. Q.WangH. (2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat International, 41, 272–279.
132.
ZhouY.ZhangL.ChiaradiaA. J. F. (2021). An adaptation of reference class forecasting for the assessment of large-scale urban planning vision, a SEM-ANN approach to the case of Hong Kong Lantau tomorrow. Land Use Policy, 109, Article 105701.
133.
ZhuangT.QianQ. K.VisscherH. J.ElsingaM. G. (2017). Stakeholders’ expectations in urban renewal projects in China: A key step towards sustainability. Sustainability, 9(9), 1640.
134.
ZhuangT.QianQ. K.VisscherH. J.ElsingaM. G.WuW. (2019). The role of stakeholders and their participation network in decision-making of urban renewal in China: The case of Chongqing. Cities, 92, 47–58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
