Abstract
For some time, business improvement districts (BIDs) have entered into the discourse and practice of academics and urban planners. This model for town centre revitalization was created in North America, whose success has led to its transfer to a growing number of countries. This evolution highlights the importance of BIDs as an urban planning practice, as well as an object of study for academics interested in new models for intervening in central urban areas. BIDs are public–private partnerships, framed within an entrepreneurial logic of urban management that aims to increase the cities’ competitiveness. In this article, we aim to unfold the main research subjects of the literature focused on BIDs. We develop a systematic review for said endeavor, resorting to the established PRISMA protocol. After the screening and analysis of selected articles, four main research subjects were documented: (i) urban governance; (ii) urban policies: mobility and transfer; (iii) activities/axis of intervention; and (iv) types of BIDs/places of intervention. The selected literature enhances the contradictory nature of BIDs, ranging from the economic revitalization of city centres to the occasional exclusionary stance, in which it is developed. Our analysis also points to the important role of different actors in all stages of the policy transfer and implementation.
Highlights
For some time, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) have entered into the discourse and practice of academics and urban planners [1]
BIDs are enacted after democratic elections, in which the majority of business owners vote positive on the execution of a BID for a usual period of five years
Despite the necessity and benefits of an integrated management of town centres was confirmed through these schemes, especially if one considers the growing importance of cities’ competitiveness and the role of urban marketing on such a process [30], the voluntary financial contribution undermined their effectiveness and temporal sustainability [25], mostly due to the existence of free-riders, i.e., businesses that benefited from the activities but did not contribute to them [31]. This is the fundamental difference between town centre management schemes (TCM) and BIDs, as these latter initiatives imply the existence of a mandatory fee for entrepreneurs and/or property owners of a delimited area, which allows them to carry out a variable set of activities, with the aim of revitalizing it [32]
Summary
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) have entered into the discourse and practice of academics and urban planners [1]. Despite the necessity and benefits of an integrated management of town centres was confirmed through these schemes, especially if one considers the growing importance of cities’ competitiveness and the role of urban marketing on such a process [30], the voluntary financial contribution undermined their effectiveness and temporal sustainability [25], mostly due to the existence of free-riders, i.e., businesses that benefited from the activities but did not contribute to them [31] This is the fundamental difference between TCM and BIDs, as these latter initiatives imply the existence of a mandatory fee for entrepreneurs and/or property owners of a delimited area, which allows them to carry out a variable set of activities, with the aim of revitalizing it [32]. In the final section some discussion and conclusions will be established
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
