Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/112842
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Building and Real Estate-
dc.creatorLuo, J-
dc.creatorMa, M-
dc.creatorHan, M-
dc.creatorChan, EHW-
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-09T06:12:37Z-
dc.date.available2025-05-09T06:12:37Z-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/112842-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMDPI AGen_US
dc.rightsCopyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_US
dc.rightsThe following publication Luo, J., Ma, M., Han, M., & Chan, E. H. W. (2024). Priorities for a Healthy City: Comparing Expert and Public Views in Small and Midsized Cities. Buildings, 14(12), 3769 is available at https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123769.en_US
dc.subjectExpert biasen_US
dc.subjectHealth equalityen_US
dc.subjectHealthy cityen_US
dc.subjectSmall and midsized cityen_US
dc.subjectUrban designen_US
dc.titlePriorities for a healthy city : comparing expert and public views in small and midsized citiesen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.volume14-
dc.identifier.issue12-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/buildings14123769-
dcterms.abstractHealthy City policies are often enforced based on expert assessments, which calls for research on the presence and occurrence of mismatches between experts’ and public opinions. Additionally, the unique challenges in small and midsized cities (SMCs) are often ignored. In this study, we compared the values of experts and the public on achieving a healthy SMC. A survey with both experts and public participants was conducted. An explorative factor analysis (EFA) and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) were adopted to identify the key factors and their importance hierarchy. Both the experts and the public highlight the importance of Environmental Quality and Governance/Service (EQ). More attention could be given to public participation and urban form to reflect the public’s perceptions better, as they prioritized these factors more than the experts did. Both similarities and mismatches between experts and the public were revealed in this study, indicating that more studies are necessary to understand heterogeneous values and achieve mutual understanding. Thus, public participation and involvement are recommended to construct a Healthy City for more comprehensive benefits. Our results also offer valuable insights from the public to plan Healthy Cities in the future, avoiding reactive decision making.-
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBuildings, Dec. 2024, v. 14, no. 12, 3769-
dcterms.isPartOfBuildings-
dcterms.issued2024-12-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85213079876-
dc.identifier.eissn2075-5309-
dc.identifier.artn3769-
dc.description.validate202505 bcch-
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberOA_Scopus/WOSen_US
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingTextThe National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52078447); the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 24CSH073)en_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.description.oaCategoryCCen_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
buildings-14-03769.pdf3.59 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.