Cross-sectional survey finds that perceived value influences residents' willingness to manage micro-public spaces, suggesting governance improvements.
Micro-public space (MPS) regeneration is typically evaluated at the point of delivery, yet long-term performance depends on whether everyday stewardship can be sustained thereafter. This study reframes neighbourhood social capital as a governance–environment signal reflecting coordination capacity and examines whether residents’ willingness to participate in post-regeneration co-management is primarily appraisal-driven (perceived value, attitude, and perceived behavioural control) or coordination-driven via a residual direct channel consistent with routine governance. A cross-sectional survey of adults residing within walkable catchments of five regenerated MPS sites in Nan’an District, Chongqing, China (N=477), was conducted. An integrated Stimulus–Organism–Response × TPB model was estimated using WLSMV with ordered categorical indicators; indirect effects were assessed via bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. Coordination capacity was strongly associated with perceived value, participation attitude, and perceived behavioural control. In the joint model, only perceived value retained a statistically reliable positive association with stewardship willingness, whereas the incremental contributions of attitude and perceived behavioural control were negligible once the stimulus was included. A residual direct association from coordination capacity to willingness persisted beyond the appraisal block, supporting a direct-dominant interpretation; bootstrap analyses yielded no robust evidence for mediation (BCa 95% CIs crossed zero). These findings suggest that sustaining regenerated micro-spaces requires low-friction governance designs that minimise coordination costs, reinforce soft accountability, and render institutional responsiveness visible to residents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: