Ambivalence in place attachment: the lived experiences of residents in danwei communities facing demolition in Shenyang, China

Figures & data

Figure 1. Neighbourhood redevelopment, forced relocation and place attachment.

Figure 2. Locations of the case study areas in Shenyang.

Table 1. Summary of resident’s ambivalent perceptions of place attachment in the context of impending neighbourhood redevelopment.

	Social dimension	Economic dimension	Physical dimension
Pull them to stay	Collective memories and experiences in danwei communities; mutual help; affective social bonds; sense of belonging to the same social group	Low living costs; neighbourhood-based business opportunities; proximity to job opportunities; expected increased land value; perceived relatively low relocation compensation	Convenience to public and commercial facilities; low-story buildings; flexibility on changing lay-out of the dwelling; perceived dwelling size
Motivate them to leave	Low self-esteem; decomposed danwei system, place identity and social networks	Stigma due to poverty (negatively affecting their job opportunities)	Illegal construction; limited investment in and maintenance of the neighbourhood; expected improved living conditions after relocation; continuous deteriorating sanitation conditions

Figure 3. The relationships between the housing market, government and institutional changes, danwei communities and the residents.

Appendix 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents.

Interview No.	Gender	Age	Household Size (persons)	Residence Length (years)	Neighbour-hood ID	Fictitious name
1	M	58	2	51	I
2	M	46	3	18	I
3	F	82	3	24	I
4	M	36	2	36	I
	M	34	3	20
	F	est. 60	2	35
5	F	est. 70	1	46	II
6	M	85	2	30	II	Meng
7	M	est. 80	2	est. 60	VI
	F	71	2	est. 50
8	F	35	5	est. 20	VI	Ai
9	M	65	2	65	VI
10	M	est. 50	3	50	VI
11	F	est. 60	5	60	VI	Hui
	M	60	5	40
12	M	est. 70	2	23	VI
13	M	est. 60	2	27	VI
14	F	est. 80	3	63	VI
15	F	40	3	40	VI
16	F	50	5	est. 30	VI
17	M	76	2	40	VI
	F	70s	2	est. 40
18	M	est. 70	est. 4	21	VI
19	M	est. 60	est. 5	not known	VI
20	M	48	3	16	VI	Jun
21	F	75	1	36	V
22	F	45	5	14	V
23	F	60	3	est. 30	V	Mei
24	F	70	2	est. 30	V
	F	56	6	est. 30
	F	est. 60	1	est. 30
25	F	60	2	60	V
26	F	est. 75	1	45	V
27	F	est. 70	1	49	V	Wen
28	F	57	2	47	V
29	F	83	2	62	VI
30	F	est. 70	not known	est. 40	III
	F	est. 70	not known	est. 40
	F	est. 70	not known	est. 40
31	F	est. 50	2	50	IV
32	F	est. 50	3	Not known	V
33	F	est. 70	1	Not known	V

Notes: Appendix 1 shows basic socioeconomic information of the respondents such as age, gender, household size and the length of residence in their neighbourhoods. We had to estimate the age of some respondents because they did not report their exact age but gave a rough range of their age. For instance, if they are 74, they would report it as ‘about 70’. It was difficult to ask further questions on their exact age because some respondents were cautious about their personal information, especially against the context of forced relocation and urban redevelopment. Neighbourhood I－VI have about 600, 70, 75, 30, 150 and 450 households respectively.