Volume 2,Issue 3
Governance Vulnerability in China’s Complete Community Construction: Risk Sources and Resilience Pathways
China’s complete community initiative has moved rapidly from policy design to large-scale implementation, yet the governance capacity of communities has not grown at the same speed. This paper argues that the main constraint on complete community construction is no longer the supply of facilities but the vulnerability of community governance itself. Drawing on vulnerability and resilience research, the paper identifies three sources of governance vulnerability: conflicts over facility siting driven by perceived negative externalities, the uneven capacity of socially vulnerable groups to participate in and benefit from renewal, and the institutional and fiscal fragility of pilot-based construction. It then proposes a resilience-building pathway that combines risk perception assessment, social vulnerability mapping, adaptive participatory governance and diversified operation funding. The paper calls for a shift from construction-oriented to governance-oriented complete community policy.
[1] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China, 2021, Guide for Complete Residential Community Construction. Beijing: MOHURD.
[2] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China et al., 2023, Notice on the Pilot Work of Complete Community Construction in 106 Communities.
[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, et al., 2008, A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters. Global Environmental Change, 2008, 18(4): 598–606.
[5] Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, et al., 2008, Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1–2): 127–150.
[6] Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, et al., 2003, A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14): 8074–8079.
[7] Dear M, 1992, Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3): 288–300.
[8] Schively C, 2007, Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3): 255–266.
[9] Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL, 2003, Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2): 242–261.
[10] Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, et al., 2004, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
[11] Slovic P, 1987, Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799): 280–285.
[12] Putnam RD, 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
[13] Wang JT, Wu JB, Zhang Q, 2025, Paradoxes in Sustainable Community Operation and Their Resolution Strategies: A Case Study of Future Communities in Zhejiang Province. Planners, 41(8): 82–88.
[14] Liu JY, 2026, Reshaping the Logic of Community Renewal and Planning Empowerment: Reflections on the 15th Five-Year Plan for Urban Renewal. Urban Planning Society of China.
[15] Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, et al., 2005, Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441–473.
