Next Article in Journal
Combined Effects of Sulfate and Chloride Attack on Steel Reinforced Mortar under Drying–Immersion Cycles
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Carbon Quota Benchmark Allocation on Cement Company Competitiveness: A System Dynamics Approach
Previous Article in Journal
What Drives the Intelligent Construction Development in China?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Environmental Efficiency Evaluation of Construction Waste Generation Based on Data Envelopment Analysis and Malmquist Index
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/buildings12081251
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on Antecedents of Residents’ Willingness to Cooperate in Urban Regeneration Projects: Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Model

by
Dan Wang
1,†,
Shouwen Jiang
1,†,
Bingsheng Liu
1,
Xinjian Li
2 and
Xiaohao Yuan
1,*
1
School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
2
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth 6102, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Buildings 2022, 12(8), 1251; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081251
Submission received: 3 July 2022 / Revised: 11 August 2022 / Accepted: 13 August 2022 / Published: 16 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Buildings, Infrastructure and SDGs 2030)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Residents’ willingness to cooperate can contribute to the success of urban regeneration projects worldwide. However, limited research has explored factors determining residents’ willingness to cooperate with neighborhood regeneration projects. This study aims to investigate the influence of psychological factors on urban residents’ willingness to comply with neighborhood regeneration projects. To achieve this goal, the study extends the theory of planned behavior by specifying the effects of perceived benefit, perceived risk, and perceived fairness on residents’ compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects. Data from 362 local residents (i.e., homeowners) in China were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results show that perceived benefit, perceived risk, and perceived fairness have significant effects on the attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, which in turn enhance residents’ compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects. In addition, perceived benefit and perceived fairness also exhibit direct positive effects on residents’ compliance intention. This study develops an enriched model to examine the forming mechanisms of residents’ compliance intention under the context of neighborhood regeneration. It also provides more insights to enhance the decision-making regarding strategies of urban regeneration toward better social sustainability. Specifically, measures should be implemented to increase residents’ subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and benefit perception. It is also recommended to foster a favorable attitude and to facilitate fairness perceptions of residents.

1. Introduction

For decades, the public and private sectors worldwide have implemented extensive urban regeneration projects to improve the physical environment, stimulate economic development, and increase social benefits [1,2]. Although urban regeneration projects improve city image and economic growth, they usually face censure as they heavily focus on the economic and financial return but omit the outcomes of social sustainability [3,4,5,6]. A neighborhood regeneration project in urban areas, as a typical case, is usually launched to upgrade the physical environment of a community. As part of urban regeneration projects, neighborhood regeneration is expected to improve civil living conditions and to promote economic growth. However, the demolition and relocation that follow can damage the social benefits of the community [7,8]. Indeed, residents would be dissatisfied with the neighborhood regeneration project and resist its implementation. Setbacks in project delivery and social unrest consequently arise [9,10].
Local governments in China have implemented substantial neighborhood regeneration projects since the market-oriented housing reformation. Roughly 100 million urban households in China have been affected by neighborhood regeneration projects in the past two decades [11]. The affected residents censured that the local government prioritizes state entrepreneurialism over their property rights [12]. As a result, massive disputes and conflicts between the government and residents have emerged [13]. According to the Social Blue Book of China (2011), residents influenced by neighborhood regeneration projects have caused more than 90,000 mass incidents (i.e., half of the total amount) in China in 2010.
Similar to other countries around the globe, the Chinese government has recognized that encouraging the participation of residents and communities in the urban regeneration process can be an effective approach to mitigating conflicts between residents and the government [14,15]. The Chinese government accordingly has started to formulate more inclusive policies in urban regeneration to achieve more consensus on conflict-arousing issues [7]. However, scholars argued that public participation in urban regeneration in countries like China still lies on the lowest level of the participation ladder, featuring government–enterprise coalition, economic orientation, manipulation toward the residents, and omittance of the public interest [12,15,16,17]. Take Nanjing (China) as an example. Although this city has implemented inclusive policies in the recent decade, its neighborhood regeneration projects present strong characteristics of manipulation by the local government when dealing with issues concerning residents’ property rights. As a result, the “totemistic” (“totemistic” originates from Arnstein (2019), which is based on the “totem” concept to illustrate the symbolic nature of low-level civil participation [17]) participation did not empower the residents to really affect the outcome of the neighborhood regeneration process; thus conflicts, resistance, and protests toward the government still exist [8,12,16].
To better improve residents’ cooperation and social sustainability in urban regeneration projects, China and the like (e.g., India) should move toward a higher level of public participation ladder, which is regarded as real public participation [12,15,17]. As such, it is necessary and unavoidable for the government to understand residents’ opinions and their influencing factors. With such knowledge, the government can better balance benefits associated with different parties in society and gain higher social support for its policies. Therefore, China’s experience can provide us with a valuable opportunity to investigate factors affecting residents’ cooperation in neighborhood regeneration projects and gain insights on dealing with government–resident conflicts in the urban regeneration process.
Prior literature on affected residents in neighborhood regeneration projects has emphasized the impact of external factors such as housing conditions, neighborhood characteristics, and residents’ demographic features [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. However, research on the internal determinants is limited. In particular, the followed housing demolition and relocation activities are the core source of the controversy of neighborhood regeneration projects. As a physical change for the residents, neighborhood regeneration can further generate critical socio-psychological meanings for them [25,26,27]. Therefore, neighborhood regeneration would serve as a main context, and a behavioral approach is needed to understand how psychological factors affect residents’ compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects.
A small body of literature has looked into the construction and public policy domains from a behavioral perspective [28]. For example, Wu et al. found that contractors’ intention toward better construction waste management significantly influenced their waste management behaviors [29]. Cooper investigated factors of urban households’ compliance intention toward water use constraints by the government and found that perceived behavioral control is the most vital determinant [30]. Although the extant literature has very limited evidence on compliance behavior in urban regeneration, the domain of land use has been concerned with behavioral research since 2016 [31]. Indeed, most of these behavioral studies identify that efforts made in land use policy are deeply affected by the psychological and biological foundation of people’s sub-optimal (or irrational) decisions [31]. Such a critical finding from behavioral research enlightens this study to focus on exploring the antecedents of residents’ compliance intention in the urban neighborhood regeneration process.
Acknowledging this void, the research question of this study was developed as follows: what are the determinants of urban residents’ willingness toward compliance with neighborhood regeneration projects? Building upon the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [32], this study aims to investigate the influence of psychological factors on urban residents’ willingness toward compliance with neighborhood regeneration projects. The tenet of TPB is that people’s behavior is affected by their intention and behavioral control. Further, intention is affected by attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral control. As a well-established behavioral model, TPB has been proved an effective tool by a large number of behavioral research studies across fields, while receiving limited attention in the urban regeneration literature.
Using data from affected residents in urban areas of China, this study tests a model that is extended from TPB to examine the determinants of residents’ intention to comply with neighborhood regeneration projects. Perceived benefit and perceived fairness are expected to positively affect residents’ cooperative intention both directly and indirectly, while perceived risk is expected to exhibit a negative effect through attitude. This study will contribute to the existing literature by providing insights into the psychological process of the residents to cooperate with government-released urban regeneration policies. Practically, this research ensures governments’ embarking on urban regeneration will make an informed decision about the management of social sustainability.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

As discussed above, prior literature on affected residents mostly focuses on the impact of external factors [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Consequently, there is a lack of research on the internal determinants. This study attempts to explore the psychological determinants of urban residents’ willingness toward compliance with neighborhood regeneration projects. In this section, the study reviews previous research and proposes the research model. The following subsections are structured as follows: firstly, research on residents’ compliance with neighborhood regeneration projects is reviewed in Section 2.1; then TPB is introduced in Section 2.2, followed by extending factors and their proposed linkages to TPB in Section 2.3. Lastly, relationships between TPB factors in the context of neighborhood regeneration are proposed in Section 2.4.

2.1. Residents’ Compliance Intention toward the Neighborhood Regeneration Project

Over the past 20 years, countries under rapid urbanization have experienced a massive urban regeneration process [1]. Meanwhile, conflicts and disputes over urban regeneration projects have also increased [1]. Various resistance activities have consequently become one of the main threats to social stability. A growing body of literature has looked at civil noncompliance with urban regeneration. However, very few studies have sought to consider the perspectives of the affected residents.
Increasing residents’ participation in the urban regeneration process has been accepted as a common practice both in Western and Asian countries, including China [14]. It is also recognized as an effective way to foster cooperation of the residents and communities in urban governance [14,17]. However, as noted by Arnstein, residents’ participation in countries that emphasize urban entrepreneurialism, like China, lies at the low level of the participation ladder, which characterizes manipulation by the government and is far from “real participation” in which citizens are empowered to affect the outcome of urban regeneration. As a result, interests of the residents and communities are ignored in the urban regeneration process, resulting in social problems such as absence of spatial justice, destruction of social networks, and deterioration of public health [16,22]. In the process moving toward real participation, it is necessary and unavoidable for the government to understand residents’ opinions and its determining factors so as to better balance benefits of different parties and gain social support for its policies.
The forceful pursuit of urban regeneration in China has achieved spatial modernization to a great extent, but conflicts and disputes over demolition and relocation have soared at the same time [11]. While the literature on civil resistance to governmental arrangements in China has mainly focused on labor protest incidents [33], a few studies on resistance from residents of urban regeneration programs focused on its political implications [1,33,34,35]. For example, Cai examined a resident protest against a neighborhood regeneration project in Beijing, with the purpose of identifying the characteristics of the residents’ political actions [34]. Despite the importance of research on residents’ resistance, little research has investigated the factors leading to residents’ resistance. Moreover, findings on the determining factors of residents’ resistance are mainly generated through qualitative analysis instead of quantitative evidence. These studies attributed residents’ noncompliance with neighborhood regeneration projects to excessive pursuit of self-interests by the local governments and property developers, and further imply that increasing compensation is the sole solution to foster residents’ compliance. However, to better understand factors fostering civil compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project, a full picture of the antecedents of civil compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project clearly requires further investigation.
The present study draws upon TPB as an overarching framework to investigate a full array of determinants of residents’ compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project. Specifically, this study focuses on the psychological factors that influence residents’ compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects. In this study, residents’ compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects is defined as the extent to which the residents are willing to cooperate and comply with the overall arrangements for neighborhood regeneration projects, which are usually specified in neighborhood regeneration projects in China. As proposed by TPB [32], one’s behavioral intention is a major and the most proximal predictor of behavioral responses. Therefore, a higher level of residents’ intention toward compliance with neighborhood regeneration projects will theoretically bring greater likelihood of their compliance with the government arrangements. Below this study introduces TPB in detail.

2.2. The Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB), proposed by Ajzen, posits that behavioral intention is affected collectively by behavioral attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control [32].
Behavioral attitude refers to the degree to which an individual has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of specific behavior. Greater degree of favorable evaluation by individuals is expected to increase their willingness to conduct the behavior in question [32,36]. Moreover, the behavioral attitude of an individual is largely influenced by their desirability of the behavioral outcome [32]. A more desirable outcome will produce more favorable evaluations by the performer. Subjective norm refers to the perceived social pressure from salient referent individuals/groups, whose opinions about performing a certain behavior are considered important to the performer [32]. Knowing the referents’ supportive attitude toward performing a behavior, the performer will be more willing to conduct it. Perceived behavioral control is related to expected difficulty in performing a certain behavior [32]. A higher perceived behavioral control level means less obstacles expected and more confidence in performing a certain behavior, and consequently, the performer will have stronger intention to perform it. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical model proposed by TPB.
TPB has been applied to understand individual compliance in a wide range of research fields. In the domain of information security, scholars have investigated determinants of end-user compliance with information-protective policy [37]. In healthcare research, TPB has become a dominant guiding theory in studies looking at people’s compliance with health-related regulations or advice [38]. Researchers have studied the role of behavioral attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in predicting diverse behaviors such as addictive behavior [39], eating behavior [40], oral hygiene behavior [41], and exercising behavior [42]. Additionally, TPB has been employed to investigate individual compliance in issues such as taxation [43], environmental protection [44], and transportation [45]. More related to the current study, in issues concerning demolition and relocation, TPB has been applied to delineate the compliance intentions of design and construction units [30,46]. For example, Yuan et al. found that attitude was the strongest predictor of project managers’ waste reduction intentions, followed by subjective norm and perceived behavioral control [47].
To the authors’ best knowledge, the current study is the first attempt to apply TPB to explore factors determining residents’ compliance intentions in the settings of urban regeneration. This study aims to use TPB as a guiding framework to integrate existing research evidence on factors that are relevant to compliance intention with the TPB model. Specifically, previous research has suggested that the perceived benefit, risks, and fairness of a certain action influence one’s behavioral compliance [48,49,50]. The tenet of TPB specifies that behavioral attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control are the proximal determinants of an individual’s behavioral intention. Therefore, this study specifies that perceived benefit, perceived risk, and perceived fairness influence residents’ compliance intention through TPB factors but in different ways. In particular, the study proposes that perceived benefit and risk affect one’s attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project, which in turn influences one’s compliance intention. In comparison, perceived fairness should affect all three TPB factors. Below the study elaborates on these links.

2.3. Linking Existing Predicting Factors to the TPB Model

Perceived benefit. Perceived benefit refers to the perceived likelihood that taking a recommended course of action will lead to a positive outcome [51]. In this study, perceived benefit is defined as the degree to which people believe they will gain positive outcomes after complying with the neighborhood regeneration project. Previously, the perceived benefit has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on behavioral intention [52,53]. In the context of urban residential relocation, Kleinhans and Kearns suggested that many residents view their relocation as a “betterment” chance to move onto a new residential/life trajectory, for which they argue that the relocation should not be regarded as purely involuntary [27]. Thus, the residents’ expectation of such “betterment”, which is viewed as potential benefits from the demolition and relocation activities of neighborhood regeneration projects in this study, would motivate the residents to accept arrangements for these projects. Hence, the study proposes:
H1. 
Perceived benefit has a positive effect on residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project.
Perceived benefit is viewed as a kind of belief that people hold about the potential behavioral outcomes they are likely to get, which has been specified by TPB as a predicting factor of behavioral attitude [29]. Numerous studies have supported the positive correlation between benefit perception and people’s behavioral attitudes [53,54,55]. For instance, Bulgurcu et al. found that benefits perceived by employees would increase their favorable attitude toward compliance with the information security policy [49]. Although the negative effect of demolition and relocation on the residents has long dominated the discourse, research has identified potentially favorable outcomes reported by residents, such as improvement in dwelling condition and geographic location [28,56]. These beneficial outcomes have been found to positively influence residents’ residential satisfaction after relocation [56]. The awareness of these potential benefits, in the context of the current study, would influence residents’ cooperative attitude toward relocation, as these are potential benefits brought by complying with the neighborhood regeneration project. Therefore, the study proposes:
H2. 
Perceived benefit has a positive effect on residents’ attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project.
Perceived risk. Perceived risk was originally proposed by Bauer and has been widely examined in the existing research [57,58]. The concept of perceived risk varies across situations [59]. In the present study, perceived risk describes the degree to which people believe they will have potential loss resulting from complying with neighborhood regeneration projects. The potential loss mainly comes from the attendant demolition and relocation activities, which is closely connected with displacement. Drawing upon research on displacement [27,60], perceived risk includes three aspects: (1) functional loss (loss of access to public services); (2) social loss (loss of social networks); and (3) psychological loss (loss of place attachment). From a resident’s point of view, their compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project may entail functional, social, and psychological loss, therefore lowering their evaluations of compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project. Hence, the study proposes:
H3. 
Perceived risk has a negative effect on residents’ attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project.
Perceived fairness. Perceived fairness is defined as the extent to which people feel that they are correctly treated or that an issue is dealt with in an acceptable way [61]. Perceived fairness has been widely discussed in managerial, psychological, and political research [62,63,64], providing evidence for its positive effect on people’s willingness to cooperate [65]. As summarized by Seiders and Berry, fairness perceived by individuals can be classified into three categories [66]: (1) procedural fairness; (2) distributive fairness; and (3) interactional fairness. These three aspects of fairness are likely to influence behavioral intention as well as all three TPB factors.
Procedural fairness refers to having the opportunity to have a voice in the decision-making process or have an influence on the outcome [67]. Individual perception of procedural fairness has been proven to influence their decision acceptance strongly [68]. Specifically, when an individual perceives that the procedure is fair, one is more willing to accept the decisions made through it. Although citizen participation has been demonstrated to be a key factor in the design and implementation of urban policies [69], the local government is now in a dominant position and the public still only take a marginal role in China. In fact, Chinese local governments’ indifference to legal requests from the residents is more likely to lead to conflict than the contents of the neighborhood regeneration project [70]. In addition, opportunities to voice and participate in the decision-making process will also enhance peoples’ perception of process and outcome control [68,71]. Thus, a higher level of perceived fairness is likely to bring a higher level of compliance intention as well as perceived behavioral control.
Distributive fairness refers to the extent to which benefit or potential loss is evenly distributed among the affected [68]. Perceived distributive fairness has been demonstrated to be of particular importance when group dynamics are involved [72]. In a neighborhood regeneration project, when residents compare the compensation they received with people around them who are in similar situations or in previous relocation cases, unfair compensation will thus inevitably and negatively influence the residents’ attitudes toward the neighborhood regeneration project and in turn lower their compliance intention. In fact, it is quite common for residents in China to express concerns or make complaints about unfair compensation [6,10,25]. Moreover, group members prefer inside distributive fairness, and the existence of unfairness in distribution will create tension among them [73]. To reduce their tension, group members will be motivated to achieve distributive fairness or to reduce distributive unfairness [73]. Therefore, whether one receives fair compensation also influences the amount of social pressure one receives from other members who are also influenced by the potential outcomes of residential redevelopment projects (such as family members and neighbors). Hence, perceived distributive fairness is likely to have a positive influence on residents’ attitudes, compliance intentions, and subjective norms.
Interactional fairness refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment provided by authority [74]. Interactional fairness is fostered when one feels that the authority treats them with dignity, respect, and/or explains the rationale for their decisions [75]. Although there is a lack of evidence suggesting whether or how interactional fairness influences residents’ compliance in relocation literature, in research domains such as tax payment, perceived interactional fairness was found to promote people’s compliance with the authority [76,77]. Adopting this notion, the authors believe that perceived interactional fairness has a similar effect on residents’ compliance intentions toward the government-launched neighborhood regeneration project, as it meets people’s psychological needs [78].
Summarizing the potential effects of all three dimensions of fairness, the study proposes:
H4. 
Perceived fairness has a positive effect on residents’ attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project.
H5. 
Perceived fairness has a positive effect on residents’ perceived subjective norm.
H6. 
Perceived fairness has a positive effect on residents’ perceived behavioral control.
H7. 
Perceived fairness has a positive effect on residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project.

2.4. Residents’ Attitudes, Subjective Norm, Perceived Behavior Control, and Compliance Intention

As discussed earlier, a great amount of empirical research has supported the significance of attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral control in individual intention formation [36,79]. However, research in the urban regeneration domain is still lacking. Based on the vast evidence and verified effectiveness of TPB in other domains, the authors postulate that the three elements specified in TPB should have similar effects on residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. Specifically, residents’ attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control are likely to positively predict their compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects. Therefore, the study proposes:
H8. 
Residents’ attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project have a positive effect on their compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project.
H9. 
Residents’ perceived behavioral control has a positive effect on their compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project.
H10. 
Residents’ subjective norm has a positive effect on their compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project.
Based on the above, the research model of this study is presented in Figure 2.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection

A questionnaire survey was sent to participants between 21 November 2020 and 25 December 2020 to collect data used in this study. The research sample included homeowners undergoing a government-launched neighborhood regeneration project in Chongqing, China. A total of 412 questionnaires were collected. After removing invalid responses (i.e., missingness) and outliers, the final sample included 362 valid responses (87.86% of total questionnaires collected). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of respondents’ demographic characteristics.

3.2. Measures

The measurement items in this study were based on validated scales from previous studies, and wording was adapted to match the context of demolition and relocation. Each item was measured with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = completely disagree” to “5 = completely agree”.
Perceived benefit. The study referred to Xi et al.’s three-item scale to measure the extent to which residents perceive benefits from demolition and relocation [80]. A sample item is “I am able to improve my housing condition”.
Perceived risk. Measurement for residents’ perceived risk was from Xi et al. [80]. In accordance with the three dimensions of potential loss caused by displacement [27,60], the items were modified to fit the research context. For instance, the item measuring potential functional loss is “Complying with the neighborhood regeneration project may bring about a decline in dwelling condition (e.g., worsened housing condition, convenient public transportation or/and a neighborhood park)”.
Perceived fairness. Perceived fairness was measured using seven items, capturing perceived procedural fairness (3 items) [75], perceived distributive fairness (2 items) [81], and perceived interactional fairness (2 items) [75]. Sample items are “I am able to express my views and feelings during those procedures” (perceived procedural fairness), “The government will enforce the neighborhood regeneration project consistently when dealing with all the residents” (perceived distributive fairness), and “I was treated with dignity and respect in the whole process” (perceived interactional fairness).
Attitude. Residents’ attitude toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project was measured by three items adapted from La Barbera and Ajzen [82] and Shi et al. [48]. An example item is “I feel that it is good to comply with the neighborhood regeneration project”.
Subjective norm. The subjective norm scale consists of three items from La Barbera and Ajzen [82] and Shi et al. [48]. In the context of compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project, the decisions of the residents are mainly influenced by two groups of salient referents: (1) individuals who are close to them (such as family and friends) and (2) individuals/groups that are able to exert certain kinds of “punishment” on them for their noncompliance. Therefore, the two aspects of social norms were the focus in the current study. The item measuring the former is “Most people who are close to me think I should comply with the neighborhood regeneration project”, while the item for the latter is “I feel social pressure from other salient individuals/groups to comply with the neighborhood regeneration project (e.g., the political party you belong to, government agencies, your superiors in the working place, other residents in the community, etc.).” Moreover, this study included one item from Shi et al. as a measure of general social pressure, namely, “It is expected of me to comply with the neighborhood regeneration project” [48].
Perceived behavioral control. Three items measuring perceived behavioral control were taken from Shi et al. [48]. An example item is “Whether I comply with the neighborhood regeneration project is entirely up to me”.
Compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. The measure of compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project was developed from Shi et al.’s three-item scale [48]. Adaptations were made to match the research context. An example item is “I am willing to comply with the neighborhood regeneration project”.

4. Data Analysis and Results

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the proposed hypotheses. PLS-SEM is especially suitable for examining predictive and extended theoretical model. Following Anderson and Gerbing, this study adopted the two-step testing approach by first evaluating the reliability and validity of measures included in the current study and then testing the hypothesized relationships [83].

4.1. Reliability and Validity Testing

Supporting the quality of the measurement model, the factor loadings of all items used in data analysis were all higher than 0.6, which exceeded the threshold of 0.5 recommended by Hair et al. [84]. As recommended by Fornell and Larcker, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) were used to examine the internal consistency reliability of all scales [85]. Results are presented in Table 2. The values of Cronbach’s alphas and CRs of each construct were all greater than the recommended value of 0.8, indicating good internal consistency reliability of all studied constructs [86]. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the average variance extracted (AVE) from the latent variables [85]. The AVE scores ranged from 0.798 to 0.905 and were all above the recommended threshold of 0.5, suggesting good convergent validity of all studied constructs [85]. Table 2 presents the square root of AVE (in bold) for each construct and correlations between the constructs. All square roots of AVE were larger than the correlation coefficients. Therefore, the discriminant validity of all studied constructs was good [85].
According to Table 2, perceived benefit (r = 0.634, p < 0.01) and perceived fairness (r = 0.488, p < 0.01) were both positively correlated with compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. Perceived risk (r = −0.694, p < 0.01) was negatively correlated with compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. In addition, residents’ attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project (r = 0.504, p < 0.01), subjective norm (r = 0.709, p < 0.01), and perceived behavioral control (r = 0.620, p < 0.01) were all significantly and positively correlated with higher compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. These correlations were all in the expected direction and provided a prerequisite for further regression analyses.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

The study then performed a PLS-SEM analysis to test the proposed hypotheses. Results showed that the R2 value of compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project was 0.63, indicating that the proposed set of predictors, including residents’ attitudes toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project, subjective norm, perceived control, perceived fairness, and perceived benefit together accounted for 63% of the variance in one’s compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. Figure 3 presents path coefficients and hypothesis testing results.
As shown in Figure 3, all the proposed relationships were significant. Perceived benefit (β = 0.222, p < 0.001) had a significant positive effect on compliance intention, which supported Hypothesis 1. Supporting Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, results revealed that perceived benefit (β = 0.397, p < 0.001), perceived risk (β = −0.235, p < 0.01), and perceived fairness (β = 0.171, p < 0.001) all significantly predicted attitude toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project. Further, perceived fairness had significant and positive effects on subjective norm (β = 0.457, p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.352, p < 0.001). Hence, Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported. In addition to perceived benefit, perceived fairness (β = 0.107, p < 0.05), attitude toward compliance with the neighborhood regeneration project (β = 0.137, p < 0.05), subjective norm (β = 0.302, p < 0.001), and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.247, p < 0.001) all show significant and positive effects on compliance intention, supporting Hypotheses 7, 8, 9, and 10.

5. Discussion

Residents’ resistance to urban regeneration projects has become a major threat to urban regeneration project implementation and social stability in China. Despite the large volume of studies in this area, a behavioral public administration angle is lacking, and there is limited research on factors affecting residents’ cooperative intentions in urban regeneration-led demolition and relocation. This study, therefore, contributes to the literature by integrating behavioral compliance research with TPB, investigating a full array of predictors of residents’ compliance intention toward neighborhood regeneration projects. Based on the empirical results, this study provides some important insights in terms of managing residents’ compliance toward the neighborhood regeneration project, which is elaborated on below.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study offers two theoretical contributions.
Using evidence from the context of urban regeneration, the findings extend the TPB framework by revealing the influence of perceived benefit, perceived fairness, and perceived risk on TPB variables, i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Specifically, perceived benefit had a positive effect on residents’ attitudes toward compliance, which in turn positively affected the residents’ compliance intention. By contrast, perceived risk had a negative effect on attitude and intention. Notably, the prediction of perceived benefit was relatively stronger in predicting residents’ attitudes than that of perceived risk. This implies that residents are likely to be more sensitive to potential benefits than risks brought by the neighborhood regeneration project. Perceived benefit and perceived fairness were also found to be predictors of compliance intention in this study, which is consistent with findings of previous studies across fields [65,76,86]. Similar to the prediction of attitude mentioned above, perceived benefit also turned out to carry more weight than perceived fairness in predicting compliance intention, which is consistent with Esaiasson et al.’s finding [87]. To some extent, findings from the current study offer empirical evidence to the assertion made by some scholars and practitioners that residents resist to gain satisfactory compensation.
The present study also validates the adaptability of the TPB model in explaining residents’ intention in the urban regeneration context. Findings of this study showed that attitude toward compliance, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control had significant positive effects on residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project, which provides empirical support for the effectiveness of the TPB model in the urban regeneration setting. Findings from the current study are consistent with previous studies examining compliance issues across domains [36,79]. Comparing the weights of the three factors, the subjective norm was the strongest factor in influencing compliance intention, with attitude being the weakest. This finding may seem contradictory to the general conclusion from many studies based on TPB, that attitude is usually the strongest predictor whereas the subjective norm is usually the weakest one [32,79]. However, this study does not view the finding as negating this conclusion for the following reasons. Firstly, Ajzen argues that the relative predictive power of TPB variables should vary across behaviors and situations [36]. For example, he argues that in cases where individual behavior is largely under volitional control (e.g., buying transgenic food), attitude is likely to carry more weight than the other two, whereas in less volitional situations (e.g., applying for a promotion) perceived behavioral control is relatively more important [88]. There also exists empirical evidence suggesting that subjective norm serves as the most important determinant of some behavioral outcomes, such as not driving after drinking [89]. Therefore, the finding that subjective norm serves as the strongest predictor of residents’ compliance intention may be specific to the context of relocation.
Additionally, the specific cultural context may explain why subjective norm is the strongest influencing factor. Existing research has found that a variety of factors may influence the predictive power of subjective norms, including the performer’s gender, effects, past experience, etc. [89]. Among all factors, cultural background has been shown as a preeminent influencing factor [90]. Collectivist cultures (e.g., Mainland China, Indonesia, and India) are characterized by a preference for interdependent relationships with other group members and prioritizing group goals over personal ones [72]. Therefore, residents with a collectivist cultural background may put the collective interests first and attach more importance to other group members’ opinions. Further supporting this explanation, Singelis et al. found that lower- and middle-class populations tend to have the strongest collectivist beliefs [91]. In the present study, the majority of the respondents (97.79%) belong to the low- and middle-class populations according to the World Bank standard [92]. Consequently, they are more likely to have a collectivist proposition and tend to put more weight on subjective norms than the other two TPB variables. Since the study is an attempt to apply TPB to the context of resident compliance in urban regeneration, this study encourages further exploration to validate the results.

5.2. Practical Implications

The study presents important practical implications by offering evidence-based strategies for designing interventions to improve residents’ compliance intention. Based on the empirical results, the government can promote residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project in multiple ways. Specifically, in accordance with the rankings of the factor weight, arguably the preferred intervention should aim to increase residents’ subjective norm, followed by increasing one’s perceived behavioral control, benefit perception, fostering a favorable attitude, and lastly, facilitating fairness perceptions. It is recommended that the government takes into account the family members of the homeowners when facilitating the compensation scheme to gain more social support. For instance, in an in-kind compensation scheme, it is recommended that transition subsidy (a subsidy for house renting before moving into the compensation house) standard be set according to family size rather than a fixed amount for each household (the latter is usually adopted by local governments in Chongqing). This is also one of the most common complaints of the respondents. In addition, it is suggested to give residents more options to choose from based on careful opinion polls (e.g., giving options of in-kind compensation and monetary compensation; different compensation levels in accordance with the market price of the houses). The added options show the residents more respect and consideration from the government and will increase their perceived behavioral control of the process [93].
Ranked in third, increasing residents’ benefit perception is also a recommended way to promote their cooperation in neighborhood regeneration projects. This is in line with some previous research [33,35]. The local government could set more favorable compensation standards from the residents’ perspective to ensure residents’ living conditions and work/education opportunities after relocation. These measures will increase their perceived benefit and reduce their concerns. Useful as it is, the budget constraint may be a potential barrier preventing local governments from implementing this strategy.
The local government can also promote residents’ cooperation intention by increasing their fairness perception. Specifically, local governments should provide more opportunities for the residents to participate in the process and voice their concerns to ensure procedural fairness. The government should guarantee that the residents get the compensation they deserve and is in accordance with the documents, rather than holding residents accountable for negotiating toward more distributive fairness. In addition, local governments should show more respect and sensitivity during their interaction with the residents to increase interactional fairness perception. These methods do not introduce additional costs to the government but nonetheless can be quite effective in increasing the residents’ compliance intention by increasing their fairness perceptions.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

As with any research, this study presents some limitations. First, the study focused on the roles of perceived benefit, perceived risk, and perceived fairness in residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. However, residents’ decision to comply with the neighborhood regeneration project may be more complex than the factors and relationships considered in the current framework. It is recommended that future studies consider a wider range of behavioral theories and include other factors such as past experience and demographic variables that also have the potential to influence behavioral intention [32,89]. Second, the data used in the present study were obtained in China; thus, there may be limitations in its generalizability to other cultural contexts. The authors recognize that future research should expand empirical inquiries to additional geographical areas to further validate the model. Lastly, this study used a cross-sectional design. The authors highlight the need for future studies to take a longitudinal design to draw stronger causal inferences regarding the relationships between perceived benefit, perceived risk, perceived fairness, TPB factors, and residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project.

6. Conclusions

Sustained economic development and social stability require residents’ cooperation in urban regeneration projects in rapidly urbanizing countries. Especially in China, it is among one of the top concerns of local governments. Research evidence on factors leading to citizens’ intention to cooperate and comply with the urban regeneration projects, however, is still lacking. In addition, existing research only highlighted one factor relevant to residents’ noncompliance—unsatisfactory compensation and is mainly qualitative in nature. This study further presents a full picture of the influencing factors that play a role in the residents’ decision-making processes with a quantitative design. This study revealed that all the studied factors have significant influences on residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. In addition, different factors exert different influence patterns in influencing residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. These factors also carry different weights in influencing residents’ behavioral intention. Theoretically, by integrating the TPB framework (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) with factors established in previous research on behavioral compliance (i.e., perceived benefit, perceived risk, and perceived fairness), this study validated the importance of looking at a full array of factors in influencing residents’ compliance intention toward the neighborhood regeneration project. Practically, this research provides strategies that can be beneficial for local governments to promote residents’ cooperation in neighborhood regeneration projects and to manage the potential social unrest in urban regeneration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.L. and S.J.; methodology, S.J. and X.Y.; investigation, X.Y.; data curation, B.L. and X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.W., S.J. and X.L.; writing—review and editing, X.L. and D.W.; funding acquisition, B.L. and D.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 72134002); Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education (grant number 21JZD029); China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant number 2021M700576); Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number 2021CD8KXYGG006); Chongqing Social Science Planning Talents Plan Project (grant number 2021YC019).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Weinstein, L.; Ren, X. The Changing Right to the City: Urban Renewal and Housing Rights in Globalizing Shanghai and Mumbai. City Community 2009, 8, 407–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zapata Moya, Á.R.; Navarro Yáñez, C.J. Urban regeneration policies and mental health in a context of economic crisis in Andalusia (Spain). J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cernea, M. The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations. World Dev. 1997, 25, 1569–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Andersen, H.S. Urban Sores: On the Interaction between Segregation, Urban Decay and Deprived Neighbourhoods; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  5. Peng, Y.; Lai, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, X. An alternative model for measuring the sustainability of urban regeneration: The way forward. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yu, T.; Shen, G.Q.; Shi, Q.; Zheng, H.W.; Wang, G.; Xu, K. Evaluating social sustainability of urban housing demolition in Shanghai, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Squires, G.D. Partnership and the pursuit of the private city. In Readings in Urban Theory, 3rd ed.; Fainstein, S.S., Campbell, C., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 207–228. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cao, L. A post-revanchist city: A governmentality perspective on public participation in Nanjing, China. Cities 2022, 122, 103550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, X.; Wang, L.; Zhu, F.; Müller, R. Prior and governed stakeholder relationships: The key to resilience of inter-organizational projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2022, 40, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yu, T.; Shen, G.Q.; Shi, Q.; Lai, X.; Li, C.Z.; Xu, K. Managing social risks at the housing demolition stage of urban redevelopment projects: A stakeholder-oriented study using social network analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 925–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, P.L.; Chen, G.J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, W.; Fan, L.; Tian, F. Blue Book of China’ s Society; Social Sciences Academic Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. Wu, F. Planning centrality, market instruments: Governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurialism. Urban Stud. 2017, 55, 1383–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhuang, T.; Qian, Q.K.; Visscher, H.J.; Elsinga, M.G. An analysis of urban renewal decision-making in China from the perspective of transaction costs theory: The case of Chongqing. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2020, 35, 1177–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Adm. Rev. 2004, 64, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, G.; Fu, X.; Han, Q.; Huang, R.; Zhuang, T. Research on the collaborative governance of urban regeneration based on a Bayesian network: The case of Chongqing. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Clemente, M.; Salvati, L. ‘Interrupted’ Landscapes: Post-Earthquake Reconstruction in between Urban Renewal and Social Identity of Local Communities. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2019, 85, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shih, M. The Evolving Law of Disputed Relocation: Constructing Inner-City Renewal Practices in Shanghai, 1990–2005. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2010, 34, 350–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Choi, Y.; Kim, H.; Woosnam, K.M.; Marcouiller, D.; Kim, H.J. Urban resettlement in residential redevelopment projects: Considering desire to resettle and willingness to pay. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2016, 31, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fang, Y. Residential Satisfaction, Moving Intention and Moving Behaviours: A Study of Redeveloped Neighbourhoods in Inner-City Beijing. Hous. Stud. 2006, 21, 671–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cao, H.; Deng, J.; Guo, H.; He, B.; Wang, Y. An Improved Recommendation Algorithm Based on Bhattacharyya Coefficient. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Applications (ICKEA), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 28–30 September 2016; pp. 241–244. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mouratidis, K. Neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood satisfaction, and well-being: The links with neighborhood deprivation. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Day, J. Effects of Involuntary Residential Relocation on Household Satisfaction in Shanghai, China. Urban Policy Res. 2013, 31, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wu, F. Residential relocation under market-oriented redevelopment: The process and outcomes in urban China. Geoforum 2004, 35, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Atkinson, R. Losing One’s Place: Narratives of Neighbourhood Change, Market Injustice and Symbolic Displacement. Hous. Theory Soc. 2015, 32, 373–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Davidson, M. Critical Commentary. Gentrification in Crisis: Towards Consensus or Disagreement? Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 1987–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kleinhans, R.; Kearns, A. Neighbourhood Restructuring and Residential Relocation: Towards a Balanced Perspective on Relocation Processes and Outcomes. Hous. Stud. 2013, 28, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chetty, R. Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015, 105, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, L. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s construction and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cooper, B. What drives compliance? An application of the theory of planned behaviour to urban water restrictions using structural equation modelling. Appl. Econ. 2017, 49, 1426–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bao, H.X.; Robinson, G.M. Behavioural land use policy studies: Past, present, and future. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hess, S. Nail-Houses, Land Rights, and Frames of Injustice on China’s Protest Landscape. Asian Surv. 2010, 50, 908–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cai, Y. China’s Moderate Middle Class: The Case of Homeowners’ Resistance. Asian Surv. 2005, 45, 777–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, C.; Wang, M.Y.; Day, J. Reconfiguration of state–society relations: The making of uncompromising nail households in urban housing demolition and relocation in Dalian, China. Urban Stud. 2021, 58, 1581–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychol. Rev. 2015, 9, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sommestad, T.; Karlzén, H.; Hallberg, J. The Theory of Planned Behavior and Information Security Policy Compliance. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2019, 59, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sniehotta, F.F.; Presseau, J.; Araújo-Soares, V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 2014, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Record, R.A. Tobacco-Free Policy Compliance Behaviors among College Students: A Theory of Planned Behavior Perspective. J. Health Commun. 2017, 22, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Beale, D.; Manstead, A. Predicting Mothers’ Intentions to Limit Frequency of Infants’ Sugar Intake: Testing the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 21, 409–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Burns, S. Application of the theory of planned behavior to oral anticoagulant therapy. Nurs. Health Sci. 2009, 11, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, H. The Role of Descriptive Norm within the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Korean Americans’ Exercise Behavior. Psychol. Rep. 2011, 109, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Taing, H.B.; Chang, Y. Determinants of Tax Compliance Intention: Focus on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Public Adm. 2021, 44, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Lu, Y.; Shen, M. Understanding Household Waste Separation Behaviour: Testing the Roles of Moral, Past Experience, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness within the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Sustainability 2017, 9, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, Y.; Hong, Z.; Liu, Y. Do driving restriction policies effectively motivate commuters to use public transportation? Energy Policy 2016, 90, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mak, T.M.; Yu, I.K.; Wang, L.; Hsu, S.-C.; Tsang, D.C.; Li, C.; Yeung, T.L.; Zhang, R.; Poon, C.S. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting construction waste recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2019, 83, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yuan, H.; Wu, H.; Zuo, J. Understanding Factors Influencing Project Managers’ Behavioral Intentions to Reduce Waste in Construction Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shi, H.; Fan, J.; Zhao, D. Predicting household PM2.5-reduction behavior in Chinese urban areas: An integrative model of Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 145, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bulgurcu, B.; Cavusoglu, H.; Benbasat, I. Information Security Policy Compliance: An Empirical Study of Rationality-Based Beliefs and Information Security Awareness. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 523–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Si, H.; Shi, J.-G.; Tang, D.; Wu, G.; Lan, J. Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Orbell, S.; Crombie, I.; Johnston, G. Social cognition and social structure in the prediction of cervical screening uptake. Br. J. Health Psychol. 1996, 1, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aisaiti, G.; Liu, L.; Xie, J.; Yang, J. An empirical analysis of rural farmers’ financing intention of inclusive finance in China: The moderating role of digital finance and social enterprise embeddedness. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 1535–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Trang, H.L.T.; Lee, J.-S.; Han, H. How do green attributes elicit pro-environmental behaviors in guests? The case of green hotels in Vietnam. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Boley, B.B.; McGehee, N.G.; Perdue, R.R.; Long, P. Empowerment and resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Huang, X.; He, D.; Tang, S.; Li, X. Compensation, housing situation and residents’ satisfaction with the outcome of forced relocation: Evidence from urban China. Cities 2020, 96, 102436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kucukarslan, S.; Reeves, A.L.; McAuley, J.W. Patient-perceived risk associated with epilepsy and its medication treatment. Epilepsy Behav. 2008, 13, 449–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Quintal, V.A.; Lee, J.A.; Soutar, G.N. Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Conchar, M.P.; Zinkhan, G.M.; Peters, C.; Olavarrieta, S. An Integrated Framework for the Conceptualization of Consumers’ Perceived-Risk Processing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2004, 32, 418–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Doucet, B. Living through gentrification: Subjective experiences of local, non-gentrifying residents in Leith, Edinburgh. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2009, 24, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Visschers, V.; Siegrist, M. Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 2012, 46, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Azar, A.; Darvishi, Z.A. Development and validation of a measure of justice perception in the frame of Fairness theory–Fuzzy approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 7364–7372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Budiyanti, H.; Patiro, S.P.S. Perceived fairness, emotions, and intention of fast food chain restaurants customers in Indonesia. Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 2018, 20, 229–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zmerli, S.; Castillo, J.C. Income inequality, distributive fairness and political trust in Latin America. Soc. Sci. Res. 2015, 52, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. De Cremer, D.; Tyler, T.R. The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Seiders, K.; Berry, L.L. Service Fairness: What it is and why it matters. Acad. Manag. Exec. 1998, 12, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Thibaut, J.W.; Walker, L. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tyler, T.R. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. Int. J. Psychol. 2000, 35, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Parés, M.; Bonet-Martí, J.; Martí-Costa, M. Does Participation Really Matter in Urban Regeneration Policies? Exploring Governance Networks in Catalonia (Spain). Urban Aff. Rev. 2012, 48, 238–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, B.; Chen, C.; Hu, B. Governing urbanization and the New Urbanization Plan in China. Environ. Urban. 2016, 28, 515–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lind, E.A.; Kanfer, R.; Earley, P.C. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 952–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Leung, K.; Tong, K.-K.; Lind, E.A. Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Adams, J.S. Inequity in Social Exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1965, 2, 267–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Colquitt, J.A.; Conlon, D.E.; Wesson, M.J.; Porter, C.O.L.H.; Ng, K.Y. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Colquitt, J.A. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 386–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Farrar, J.; Kaplan, S.E.; Thorne, L. The Effect of Interactional Fairness and Detection on Taxpayers’ Compliance Intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wenzel, M. A Letter from the Tax Office: Compliance Effects of Informational and Interpersonal Justice. Soc. Justice Res. 2006, 19, 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kenrick, D.T.; Griskevicius, V.; Neuberg, S.L.; Schaller, M. Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundations. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 5, 292–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Xi, J.; Hwang, S.-S.; Feng, X.; Qiao, X.; Cao, Y. Perceived Risks and Benefits of the Three Gorges Project. Sociol. Perspect. 2007, 50, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Reisig, M.D.; Bratton, J.; Gertz, M.G. The Construct Validity and Refinement of Process-Based Policing Measures. Crim. Justice Behav. 2007, 34, 1005–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. La Barbera, F.; Ajzen, I. Understanding support for European integration across generations: A study guided by the theory of planned behavior. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 437–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  85. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fornell, C. A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis: Methods; Praeger: Westport, CT, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  87. Esaiasson, P.; Persson, M.; Gilljam, M.; Lindholm, T. Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance. Br. J. Political Sci. 2019, 49, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ajzen, I. Martin Fishbein’s Legacy: The Reasoned Action Approach. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2012, 640, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Armitage, C.J.; Norman, P.; Conner, M. Can the Theory of Planned Behaviour mediate the effects of age, gender and multidimensional health locus of control? Br. J. Health Psychol. 2002, 7, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Abrams, W.D.J.; Ando, K.; Hinkle, S. Psychological Attachment to the Group: Cross-Cultural Differences in Organizational Identification and Subjective Norms as Predictors of Workers’ Turnover Intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 24, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Singelis, T.M.; Triandis, H.C.; Bhawuk, D.P.S.; Gelfand, M.J. Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement. Cross-Cult. Res. 1995, 29, 240–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEParchives/GEP2007/GEP_i-xxviii.pd (accessed on 5 May 2021).
  93. Fu, H.; Zhu, H.; Xue, P.; Hu, X.; Guo, X.; Liu, B. Eye-tracking study of public acceptance of 5G base stations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 12 01251 g001 550
Figure 1. The theory of planned behavior.
Figure 1. The theory of planned behavior.
Buildings 12 01251 g001
Buildings 12 01251 g002 550
Figure 2. Research model.
Figure 2. Research model.
Buildings 12 01251 g002
Buildings 12 01251 g003 550
Figure 3. Path analysis results.
Figure 3. Path analysis results.
Buildings 12 01251 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
CharacteristicDemographic ItemFrequencyPercentage (%)
GenderMale14941.16
Female21358.84
Age (year)Under 21 00
21–304011.04
31–409125.14
41–50 7219.89
51–60 7620.99
More than 608322.93
Years of educationUnder 6205.52
6–912434.25
10–129425.96
13–169325.69
More than 16318.56
OccupationCivil servant339.12
Employees of state-owned enterprises15241.99
Employees of private enterprises154.14
Self-employed30.83
Retired10529.01
Others20.55
Monthly income
(RMB)		Under 100130.83
1001–300012434.25
3001–500017548.34
5001–70004011.05
7001–9000123.31
More than 900082.21
Years of residenceUnder 130.83
1–57620.99
5–10 12434.25
10–154311.88
More than 15 11632.04
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations among variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations among variables.
VariableMeanSD1234567
1. Perceived benefit2.8370.8600.887
2. Perceived risk2.7790.734−0.503 **0.842
3. Perceived fairness2.9210.9330.454 **−0.386 **0.839
4. Attitude3.2790.8370.593 **−0.500 **0.442 **0.894
5. Subjective norm2.6210.6530.600 **−0.470 **0.457 **0.404 **0.798
6. Perceived behavior control3.3550.6220.413 *−0.466 **0.352 **0.269 **0.689 **0.851
7. Compliance intention2.7790.9380.635 **−0.694 **0.493 *0.505 **0.710 **0.621 **0.905
Note: Values in the diagonal are the square roots of AVEs, and values below the diagonal are the correlations among constructs. SD = standard deviation. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, all p-values two-tailed.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, D.; Jiang, S.; Liu, B.; Li, X.; Yuan, X. Research on Antecedents of Residents’ Willingness to Cooperate in Urban Regeneration Projects: Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Model. Buildings 2022, 12, 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081251

AMA Style

Wang D, Jiang S, Liu B, Li X, Yuan X. Research on Antecedents of Residents’ Willingness to Cooperate in Urban Regeneration Projects: Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Model. Buildings. 2022; 12(8):1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081251

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Dan, Shouwen Jiang, Bingsheng Liu, Xinjian Li, and Xiaohao Yuan. 2022. "Research on Antecedents of Residents’ Willingness to Cooperate in Urban Regeneration Projects: Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Model" Buildings 12, no. 8: 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081251

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop