A Resilience-Capital Framework for Equitable Urban Regeneration

Thesis Abstract

The study addresses the persistent inequities in urban regeneration processes where resilience aspirations often privilege infrastructural and economic gains over social equity, resulting in uneven distribution of benefits across communities in rapidly transforming cities. It proposes a Resilience-Capital Framework (RCF) that integrates social, economic, and ecological capital with adaptive governance to advance equitable redevelopment outcomes. The aim is to operationalize a theory-driven model that captures how resilience capacities interact with capital resources to shape inclusive regeneration trajectories. Specific objectives are (1) to identify distinct forms of capital (human, social, financial, ecological) that moderately influence regeneration outcomes; (2) to conceptualize resilience attributes—adaptive capacity, transformation potential, and resistance to displacement—within the urban regeneration context; (3) to examine governance mechanisms, stakeholder participation, and policy instruments that mediate capital flows and resilience gains; (4) to test the RCF’s predictive validity for equitable outcomes across neighborhoods; and (5) to formulate actionable recommendations for planners and policymakers to operationalize equity-oriented resilience. The methodology adopts a mixed-methods research design anchored in a comparative case study of three metropolitan districts undergoing regeneration, within a large Southeast Asian city with documented disparities in spatial development. The population includes urban planners, community leaders, property developers, and residents in selected districts. A purposive sample of 45-60 respondents will be interviewed, complemented by a survey of around 600 residents, stratified by income, tenure, and length of residence. Data collection instruments comprise semi-structured interview guides, a standardized survey instrument to measure perceived resilience and capital stocks, and documentary analysis of planning policies and project records. Validity and reliability will be ensured through triangulation, pilot testing of the survey with 60 participants, and inter-coder reliability checks for qualitative coding. Quantitative data will be analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to assess relationships among capital variables, resilience attributes, and equitable outcomes, with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to account for neighborhood-level effects. Qualitative data will be analyzed through thematic analysis, using NVivo to identify patterns related to governance processes, participation, and displacement risks. A model specification will articulate direct and indirect effects of capital and resilience on equity indicators, while robustness checks will include bootstrapping and alternative model constraints. Ethical considerations include informed consent, confidentiality, and a community advisory board to ensure respectful engagement with vulnerable groups. Expected findings include (a) a positive association between diversified capital stocks and equitable regeneration outcomes, moderated by adaptive governance; (b) resilience attributes mediating the relationship between capital access and inclusive displacement avoidance; (c) evidence that participatory governance and transparent financing amplify the equity impacts of regeneration projects; (d) articulation of thresholds for capital inputs required to achieve measurable improvements in housing affordability, access to amenities, and income convergence across districts. The study anticipates cross-case variation, with districts exhibiting stronger social capital and inclusive governance achieving more equitable gains even when financial capital is moderate, highlighting the critical role of governance quality and community engagement. Contributions to knowledge include (1) the formalization of the Resilience-Capital Framework as a theory-informed tool for diagnosing and guiding equitable urban regeneration; (2) empirical clarification of how different capital forms interact with resilience attributes to produce equitable or inequitable outcomes; (3) integration of adaptive governance mechanisms into regeneration models, emphasizing participatory planning, risk-sharing arrangements, and inclusive metrics for success; and (4) a policy-oriented set of indicators and decision-support tools for planners to monitor equity dimensions during regeneration cycles. The study concludes that equitable urban regeneration requires intentional alignment of capital investments with resilience objectives and governance arrangements that center marginalized communities. Recommendations emphasize (i) embedding community-based monitoring within regeneration budgets, (ii) designing financing instruments that unlock social and ecological capital without triggering displacement, (iii) institutionalizing transparent participation processes, and (iv) developing equity-focused performance indicators to be integrated into planning approval and project evaluation frameworks.