Socially sustainable urban renewal in emerging economies: A comparison of Magdolna Quarter, Budapest, Hungary and Albert Park, Durban, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the social sustainability of urban renewal interventions in Hungary and South Africa. The societal and environmental challenges arising from urbanisation and the associated population growth in major urban centres around the world have increased the research and policy foci on urban sustainability and governance. While urban regeneration projects are vitally important to urban sustainability, these interventions have been widely criticised because social sustainability issues have been overlooked or ignored. Therefore, there is a need for governance practices that are applicable to different national and urban contexts. The main aim of this study is twofold: firstly, it provides a literature review on the social sustainability of urban renewal and secondly, it compares urban renewal interventions in two different geographical settings to provide recommendations about public participation and stakeholder involvement, which can contribute to increasing social sustainability of urban renewal projects. To this end, a comparative approach was adopted through the analysis of two urban renewal projects: Magdolna Quarter Programme (Budapest, Hungary) and the Albert Park (Durban, South Africa), the data for which were based on a review of secondary sources, including international literature and policy documents. It was found that although urban renewal serves a city-wide purpose (and not just a local one), the socio-economic impacts of these projects have not yet been adequately explored. Furthermore, to achieve higher urban renewal sustainability, there is a need for impact assessments (with special attention paid to the social effects) to promote public participation and empowerment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".