Priorities for a Healthy City: Comparing Expert and Public Views in Small and Midsized Cities

0Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Healthy 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

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). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123769

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free