Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To enact urban resilience at the street–neighborhood scale, we advance a two-stage “measurement–scenario–combination” framework. Stage 1 develops and validates a unified instrument covering four latents—place attachment/identity, accessibility–safety, governance–maintenance, and adoption–participation. Stage 2 uses an image-based conjoint with seven street-landscape elements at five levels; utilities are estimated with hierarchical Bayes, and multigroup SEM with bootstrapped mediation (public vs. expert) tests psychosocial pathways via perceived safety, place attachment, and governance beliefs. The sampling blends online self-administration with targeted invitations under quotas and quality controls. The results yield transferable thresholds and consensus anchors: street width and lighting peak in the upper-middle range; greenery and activity hubs follow inverted-U curves; and preferred traffic exposure centers on mid-to-low bands. Mediation is stronger through attachment/safety for the public, while experts rely more on governance/maintenance beliefs; disagreements concentrate at upper extremes (over-illumination and excessive canopy). We contribute a deployable configuration frontier that translates “being seen–being shaded–being used” into governable specifications, integrating public–expert knowledge to support citywide baselines, community negotiation menus, and policy–standard updates for heat- and injury-risk mitigation and activation of use and collaboration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: