Characteristics and concerns of community centers in regenerated neighborhoods

In 1929, Clarence Perry introduced a groundbreaking urban planning concept known as the “neighborhood unit,” aimed at creating self-contained, functional neighborhoods within metropolitan areas. At the core of this innovative model lay a fundamental principle: strategically situating the neighborhood’s central hub, typically represented by the school, to ensure that students could conveniently live within a half-mile, easily walkable distance from their educational institution [4]. Perry’s vision also encompassed the strategic placement of commercial zones and high-speed roadways, such as highways and arterials, around the periphery of the neighborhood [4]. Following this innovative approach, the perception of where and how community centers should be situated and utilized underwent a significant transformation within the sphere of urban planning theory and practice. This concept has notably influenced urban planning in South Korea, where community centers have been strategically positioned as central hubs within neighborhoods.

South Korea has substantially used a large-scale urban redevelopment to rebuild neighborhoods since the 1980s, which have resulted in positive outcomes such as improved economic conditions and more housing units [3]. However, these approaches have also been criticized for displacing residents and losing of social assets [5–7]. Hence, during the decade spanning from 2010 to 2019, Korea transitioned toward a more grassroots-oriented strategy, fostering citizen involvement in initiatives focused on revitalizing urban areas [3]. This strategy enables community members to articulate their perspectives and exert meaningful influence on the planning process. However, the implementation of this approach faces challenges, particularly in providing public support for residents such that they can actively participate in the planning process [8]. Despite these challenges, planners and scholars have widely regarded urban regeneration initiatives as successful in revitalizing blighted communities and promoting community engagement, partly because of the active involvement of local residents in the planning and execution of these projects.

The Residential Environment Improvement Project (REIP) is a prominent urban regeneration mechanism in Korea that focuses on rejuvenating both the physical and social aspects of residential areas [9]. Since its inception within the realm of urban regeneration strategies, the REIP has evolved into one of the most significant tools for revitalizing deteriorated and distressed neighborhoods in Korea. Despite being characterized as a smaller-scale endeavor in comparison to alternative redevelopment approaches, the REIP places a distinct emphasis on the preservation and enhancement of social assets within communities (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2021). Distinct from other urban redevelopment endeavors that typically entail the demolition of aging structures, the REIP emphasizes preserving and enhancing social assets while improving infrastructure to revitalize distressed neighborhoods [3, 10]. Regarding physical regeneration, the REIP encompasses the revitalization of decayed infrastructure and built environments, encompassing streets, water and sewage networks, street CCTV cameras, and various other elements, to rejuvenate blighted neighborhoods. Moreover, along with physical transformation, the essence of the REIP lies in the preservation and augmentation of social capital within the community (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2021). Consequently, the provision of community centers, where residents can engage in social interactions and activities, has emerged as a pivotal consideration for planners and policymakers in achieving the regeneration of REIP sites. The REIP’s approach to urban regeneration represents a shift towards a more holistic approach that recognizes the importance of preserving each community’s unique social characteristics and needs. The project’s emphasis on revitalizing the physical and social dimensions of communities is widely viewed as a more sustainable approach to urban regeneration that can enhance community well-being.

At locations where the REIP is put into effect, the community center plays a crucial role in facilitating various community events and fostering social connections among residents. Residents proposed the need for indoor and outdoor attributes of community centers built by the government. At the beginning of the regeneration initiative, community members worked alongside planners and public officials to identify essential upgrades to residential environments and community spaces. Following the agreement, the responsibility of acquiring land and constructing the center fell on the Seoul Metropolitan Government [9]. Community centers at REIP sites stand out from conventional centers run by the public sector, as they are established and managed entirely by the residents themselves [2]. Whereas the public sector offers physical infrastructure, community centers encourage residents to participate in community activities, including neighborhood meetings, cleaning initiatives, singing lessons, preschool childcare, knitting clubs, film screenings, and community festivals. By enabling the establishment and operation of community centers, policymakers and planners acknowledge that the REIP can provide residents with stable physical and economic resources to participate in diverse events, thereby fostering social cohesion and revitalizing the community. This perspective underscores the significance of the community center in the REIP project, setting it apart from other urban redevelopment endeavors.

The allocation of substantial financial supplies to establish community centers at REIP sites reflects the recognition of planners and public officials regarding the potential benefits they can offer. According to the Seoul Metropolitan Government (9), by 2022, the implementation of 86 REIPs was completed, and for Seoul REIPs, 62.5% of the total expenses were allocated to building community centers for residents. On average, each site received a budget of 1.9 million USD to establish these centers. In contrast, the introduction of community centers has faced resistance from some residents who question their efficacy [8]. After the completion of the REIPs, there has been a growing concern about the low frequency of community center usage in neighborhoods. Many believe that community centers are underutilized because their site locations do not align with the opinions of residents. For instance, community centers are often located in less accessible areas because these areas tend to have more affordable land prices for the public sector. Therefore, some residents advocate reallocating REIP budgets from community center construction to urban redevelopment strategies, such as replacing distressed buildings with new facilities, for more effective outcomes, such as increased individual property values [8]. Despite the challenges posed by the low frequency of community center usage, several planners, researchers, and administrators remain supportive of their potential to promote events and gatherings and improve social capital through regeneration initiatives [11, 12]. This ongoing support demonstrates the continued importance of community spaces in the REIP as a tool for sustainable urban regeneration. However, the provision of community centers may not support the notion that residents would naturally use these public facilities. There is limited empirical evidence on encouraging residents to use community centers that potentially enhance social capital in Korea’s regeneration project settings. Hence, this study fills a gap by empirically investigating how residents’ preferences and satisfaction with the accessibility of community centers influence the frequency of their use, while also accounting for the physical environments in neighborhoods.

Factors associated with community center use

Community centers are commonly created as a communal area where residents can socialize, interact with one another, and participate in diverse community events and programs [13]. These spaces are typically established by public or private organizations with the objective of fostering community development and enhancing the well-being of local inhabitants [11]. The utilization of a community center may be subject to a diverse range of factors that can potentially affect it.

In terms of socio-demographic characteristics, individual age influences community center use, with older adults using these facilities more frequently than younger age groups [14]. This can potentially be attributed to various factors, such as social isolation, limited mobility, and retirement, which can increase the necessity for social interaction and community engagement. Consequently, community centers can provide valuable resources for older adults to meet their social and recreational needs. Gender also plays a role in the frequency of community center use [15]. For example, work or career demands may limit male access to community centers. Additionally, some community center activities may be perceived as gender-specific, which could impact usage patterns. Therefore, it is vital to understand gender differences in community center use when designing inclusive programs and activities. High-income households may use community centers less frequently because of their access to other amenities or facilities that offer similar services, such as private gyms or clubs, which may be better suited to their preferences [16]. Additionally, high-income individuals may have busy work schedules that limit their leisure time. In terms of marital status, unmarried individuals may have fewer social connections and support systems, potentially making them less likely to use community centers [17]. Conversely, households with more children may use community centers more often due to the range of programs and services available that cater to children, such as after-school care, summer camps, and youth sports leagues [18]. This makes community centers a convenient and affordable option for meeting childcare needs, while providing children with opportunities for socialization and physical activity. Furthermore, community centers may offer programs and services designed to support families, which could encourage households with more children to use these facilities regularly.

The use of a community center can be significantly influenced by the surrounding physical environment [19–22]. Factors such as walkability, access to transit, and amenities such as parks and recreational facilities can contribute to the likelihood of individuals using a center by providing convenient and accessible options for transportation and recreation. For instance, people residing in areas with high walkability or easy access to public transportation are more likely to visit facilities [19]. Safety is also a critical factor influencing the use of community center. A perception of safety concerns or crime in the surrounding area can discourage individuals from using the center, particularly during evening or night hours [21]. Additionally, cleanliness around the community center is essential for creating an inviting and welcoming space for individuals to visit [22].

The indoor and outdoor attributes of a community center, such as its size, cleanliness, and safety, can have a significant impact on its use [23]. The size of a community center is an important factor, as it determines the capacity and range of activities that can be offered. A larger community center can accommodate a wider range of events and activities, attracting more individuals to use the facility [24]. A clean and well-maintained community center can improve user experience and encourage individuals to visit and use the center more frequently [24]. A perception of safety concerns or incidents in the indoor and outdoor environment can discourage individuals from using the facility [25]. By implementing appropriate safety measures, such as hiring trained personnel, installing security cameras, and developing emergency response plans, it is possible to enhance the safety of the environment and encourage more people to use the center.

The use of community centers can be influenced by program attributes, such as education, leisure, childcare, and free-sharing programs [26]. Offering a diverse range of programs that cater to various interests and needs can attract a wider audience and increase the likelihood of their use [27]. The quality and variety of programs offered are critical factors that influence the use of community centers. Centers that provide high-quality programs led by qualified instructors can significantly enhance user experience and encourage individuals to return to the facility [27]. Therefore, prioritizing the development and implementation of diverse and high-quality programs can help community centers increase their use and appeal to a broader audience.

Accessibility is another key factor that may affect community center use. Accessibility to community centers not only promotes physical activity but also increases the use of community centers among individuals [28]. When community centers are easily accessible to individuals, they are more likely to visit and utilize the available facilities because of the convenience of their location, making it easier for residents to access the center and participate in activities [29]. This, in turn, can lead to increased social interactions and a sense of community, which have been linked to positive health outcomes. Community centers with easy access to public transportation, bicycle lanes, or walking paths are more heavily utilized by residents. Therefore, policymakers and urban planners should consider the location and design of community centers to increase accessibility and promote use among individuals, which, in turn, can lead to various health and social benefits.

Neighborhood self-selection

Neighborhood self-selection refers to the process by which individuals choose to reside in areas that provide resources and amenities aligned with their desired lifestyles. This phenomenon has been extensively studied to investigate the associations between physical environment and transportation choices [30]. Self-selection has also been recognized as pivotal in investigating the association of built environments on physical activity [31]. Extensive research on residential mobility and housing selection has investigated the significant effects of race/ethnicity and income on the process of self-selection [32]. Self-selection in neighborhoods with similar demographics can result in the segregation of different racial and ethnic groups across neighborhoods. If low-income households select neighborhoods based only on affordable housing, and if these communities do not have sufficient resources for physical activity, the association between the built environment and levels of physical activity may be overestimated. Thus, various factors can influence physical activity, including the physical environment, predisposition to physical activity, and variables associated with physical activity that influence residential selection, or a combination of these variables [31].

Furthermore, this process can pose difficulties in distinguishing the impact of environmental features on behavioral outcomes from an individual’s preference for features that support their preferred behaviors [33]. For example, when examining the relationship between proximity to community centers and frequency of use, an individual’s desire to spend time in the community center may be the driving force behind their decision to live near the facility. Consequently, this preference may serve as an indicator of behavior [33]. Thus, individuals who prioritize using community centers may opt to reside in places that offer convenient access to such facilities, and this preference for accessibility can affect their frequency of use, independent of the physical environment. If the phenomenon of neighborhood self-selection is not taken into account, it may lead to an inaccurate assessment of the effect of neighborhood environmental characteristics on behavioral outcomes. Thus, it is crucial to consider this bias when evaluating the impact of physical environments on behavioral outcomes to avoid misleading conclusions and ensure that policies are based on accurate assessments.

When examining the relationship between accessibility to community spaces and frequency of use, it is essential to consider both the physical environment and residents’ preferences. However, our understanding of whether people use community centers solely because of physical environments, preference/self-selection, or a combination of both is limited. A few studies have explored the connection between preferences, satisfaction with community centers, and usage frequency. Additionally, accessibility to community centers may moderate the relationship between self-selection/preference for accessibility to community centers and usage frequency. In other words, individuals who prioritize utilizing community centers are positively correlated with residing in areas that offer convenient access to these facilities, thereby increasing the probability of their usage. These findings could aid policymakers and urban planners in devising strategies to improve community resources accessibility, encourage physical exercise, and advance communal welfare.

Study area, population, and data

The objective of the REIP is to enhance the built and social fabric of disadvantaged neighborhoods. From 2012 to 2020, 67 deteriorated neighborhoods in Seoul were identified for regeneration using the REIP. Twenty-eight of these neighborhoods have community centers built to enhance the social environment and revitalize the area, while the remaining 39 neighborhoods are undergoing infrastructure improvements and construction of new community centers to further enhance the quality of life in these areas [9].

Two neighborhoods that were completed by the REIP were selected for the study: Sansae and Samdeok neighborhoods. Sansae and Samdeok are situated approximately five kilometers northwest and northeast of downtown Seoul, respectively. In 2012 and 2013, Seoul introduced the REIP in these two neighborhoods as the initial phase of regenerating deteriorated areas. With the aim of achieving social regeneration, the Seoul Metropolitan Government constructed community centers in both Sansae and Samdeok in 2014 and 2015, respectively, alongside the revitalization of the physical environments (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2021). These two neighborhoods, in particular, faced a notable deficiency in community hubs; there was a conspicuous absence of community spaces in the neighborhoods, such as schools, religious institutions, and social welfare facilities, where residents could actively participate in social interactions and engage in various activities. However, after the construction of community centers in the neighborhoods, both community spaces have been consistently operated by residents, distinguishing them from other REIP sites. Additionally, these neighborhoods share similarities in terms of their community center background and characteristics (Fig 2). Since the implementation of the REIP, these two neighborhoods have emerged as demonstration projects and representative examples of successful REIP regenerations in Seoul. Consequently, these two neighborhoods are suitable for the study, given that the consistent operations of their community centers serve as successful REIP models, ensuring the mitigation of short-term fluctuations and distortions in conducting the analyses.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Examples of community centers located in the Sansae and Samdeok of Seoul.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295530.g002

To provide residents with community spaces that were previously unavailable, community centers were built in the neighborhoods of Sansae and Samdeok, with the Seoul Metropolitan Government overseeing the construction. Residents were provided financial assistance by the public sector to facilitate the coordination and management of the centers [9]. Although Sansae has a larger population than Samdeok, both neighborhoods have similarities in terms of environmental conditions and REIP planning. The study area had previously dilapidated housing units and deteriorated infrastructure, raising safety concerns about crime (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2021). The two centers are also similar in terms of their total floor area, construction costs, and programs initiated and run by the residents themselves. Both neighborhoods aimed to enhance their deteriorating conditions by promoting environmental sustainability through various measures, such as creating pedestrian-friendly streets, ensuring access to efficient water and sewage systems, and ensuring safety from crime. These enhancements aimed to encourage walking behavior among residents, promote in-person communication, and strengthen social connections. These communities offer an appropriate setting to examine the influence of community center utilization on residents, as they reduce the impact of unobserved factors such as the size, condition, and duration of center operation, as well as the revitalization of the surrounding environments. The achievement of these neighborhoods in improving social well-being with the aid of community centers has inspired numerous other REIPs to follow a similar approach. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the notion of residents’ utilization of community centers.

This study employed a survey to investigate the frequency of community center utilization among adults aged 19 years and above in the Sansae and Samdeok neighborhoods. This survey evaluated socio-demographic characteristics, preferences and satisfaction with community centers, perceptions of physical environments, and the frequency of utilizing community centers. It was conducted by a professional survey firm (Korea Research Corporation) by request of the Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2022, stratified by two neighborhoods, and one adult per household was interviewed in-person after providing them with the survey questionnaire. The final sample size was 168 respondents. This survey was confirmed exemption by the members of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Hanyang University (No. HYUIRB202203005). The raw data of survey variables and the data sets are provided in the S1 Data.

Variables and measurements

Table 1 presents a list of variables and their measurements. This study investigated the frequency of community center utilization by requesting respondents to rate their frequency of use on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating “not often” and 5 indicating “very often”.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. List of variables, measurements, and their descriptive statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295530.t001

The socio-demographic characteristics encompass various factors, such as number of children, education level, age, household monthly income, number of household members, homeownership, gender, marital status, and region. Regarding residency duration and membership of the LCC, respondents were asked to provide the total time spent residing in the neighborhood and whether they were currently members of the LCC. Regarding the recognition and perceived importance of the community center, the respondents were asked whether they knew about its existence and whether they thought it was necessary. Regarding the physical environment, this study assessed the satisfaction levels of respondents regarding several factors, including walkability of the neighborhood, cleanliness, transit accessibility, availability of amenities, and crime and safety. The study employed a 4-point Likert scale to measure the satisfaction levels of the respondents, with 1 indicating “not satisfied” and 4 indicating “very satisfied.”

Additionally, the survey assessed the preferences of respondents regarding the importance of community centers in various aspects, including indoor attributes such as size, cleanliness, time availability, convenience, and safety; outdoor attributes such as design quality, cleanliness, and safety; program attributes such as program quality, interaction programs, education programs, leisure programs, childcare programs, household maker support programs, and free-sharing programs; and accessibility. Furthermore, respondents were asked about their level of agreement with the community center in the same aspects in terms of their preferences.

Data analysis

To answer the first research question, cross-tabulation tables were generated to examine the difference between residents’ preferences and their satisfaction with access to the community center. For the second and third research questions, this study employed a structural equation model (SEM) to investigate the multifaceted factors related to community center usage frequency. Using the theoretical structure and factor loadings derived from factor analyses, the study constructed latent variables for community center preferences and satisfaction. A structural model was developed and the Maximum Likelihood (ML) approach was used to examine the proposed associations among all variables. Several indices were used to evaluate model fitness, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). An acceptable model had an RMSEA below 0.05 and CFI and TLI above 0.90 [34]. The analysis used the M-Plus 8.5 software to calculate the standardized coefficients, which were used to assess how each independent variable influenced the outcomes in comparison with others.