Guidance experiments on residents' participation in decision-making activities related to urban settlement regeneration in China

China’s older urban settlements (1970s–early 21st century) face aging buildings, deteriorated environments, and outdated facilities. Regeneration has shifted from demolition-reconstruction to organic renewal such as retrofitting and environmental/infrastructure improvements. Historically, top-down government decisions often conflicted with residents’ needs and interests. To improve livability and satisfaction, policy now promotes resident participation in regeneration decision-making activities (e.g., meetings, online groups, on-site consultations). However, resident motivation and initiative are often low, hindering communication and alignment with residents’ preferences. Drawing on behavioral psychology and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the authors posit that while personality is hard to change, external environments can shape psychological factors (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) and thereby behavior. The study aims to identify external environmental levers and corresponding guidance measures to increase residents’ active participation, while examining potential differences by personality type (introversion vs. extraversion). Hypotheses include: (H1a) external pressure influences participation via subjective norms; (H1b) regeneration information influences participation via perceived behavioral control; (H2–H3) specific guidance measures will be effective with differing strengths; and (H4) effects differ by personality.

The study is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), linking psychological environments (attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) to behavior. Participation attitudes are influenced by subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. External pressure—from neighbors/representatives (proprietor committees), community staff, and local government incentives—affects subjective norms. Regeneration information—including policy support, technology knowledge, and case experience—affects perceived behavioral control. Personality (introversion vs. extraversion) shapes behavioral manifestations but is relatively stable and not directly changed by short-term environmental shifts. Prior studies often used SEM to identify determinants and suggested measures (policy optimization, autonomous organizations, communication, knowledge publicity) without experimentally verifying their effects. Behavioral experiments can effectively assess social-environment influences on individual behavior. This work integrates TPB with experimental validation of guidance measures and accounts for personality differences.

Modeling and survey (SEM): Theoretical model with equations RP = a1*PA + a2*SN + a3*PBC + ε1; PA = γ1*SN + γ2*PBC + ε2; SN = ξ*EP + ε3; PBC = δ*RI + ε4, where RP (participation), PA (attitude), SN (subjective norms), PBC (perceived behavioral control), EP (external pressure), RI (regeneration information). Measurement variables for each construct were defined (three indicators each). Personality was measured via three Likert items differentiating introversion vs. extraversion. Data collection: Survey conducted in regions matching experiment sites (Harbin, China). 778 valid responses (393 extraversion, 385 introversion). PCA extracted six components with cumulative contributions: all 74.521%, introversion 71.472%, extraversion 77.203%. CFA supported reliability and validity (Cronbach’s α>0.6; CR>0.7; KMO: all 0.855, introversion 0.786, extraversion 0.861; AVE square roots > inter-factor correlations; fit indices met standards: 1<Cmin/df<3; GFI/AGFI/TLI/CFI>0.8; RMSEA/SRMR<0.08). Guidance measure identification: Path analysis confirmed H1a and H1b. Based on theory, survey, and practice, six guidance measures were selected: Enhancing external pressure (leading role of representatives; enhancing communication; incentives) and Providing regeneration information (policy advocacy; regeneration technology popularization; regeneration case sharing). Experimental design: Two regions in Harbin were selected for cross-validation: Region A (development zone: Xuanxi, Xuanqing) and Region B (city center: Wenduan, Sanwen). Both regions share similar building age (1990s), poor environment, common policies/support, and demonstration status, yet differ in location and community jurisdiction. Recruitment and grouping: Residents were recruited with community help. Initial experiment: subjects received 200 experimental coins (representing participation resources/costs) and, without guidance, reported coins they would contribute, and completed personality items. Based on initial data, 48 subjects per region (96 total) were selected and split into six groups per region (8 subjects per group: 4 introverted, 4 extraverted), with mean introvert/extravert contributions balanced (±1%). Three groups underwent external-pressure measures; three groups underwent information measures. Each experiment was replicated across three groups for robustness. Guidance implementations: - Leading role of representatives: group free communication (20 min), selection of a highly motivated representative (from top initial contributors); representative contributed first; others contributed referencing the representative. - Enhancing communication: staff role-played neighbor/community staff to communicate 20 min about participation advantages; then subjects contributed. - Incentives: host explained government-backed rewards (e.g., fee reductions, goods) tied to contribution; 800-coin reward fund per group allocated post-experiment; then subjects contributed. - Policy advocacy: subjects read policy materials; host explained support policies; then contributed. - Technology popularization: subjects watched a video on regeneration technologies; then contributed. - Case sharing: role-play staff discussed successful cases; optional reading materials on processes/outcomes; then contributed. Metrics: Increase in individual contribution = Ca − C0; participation contribution rate = C/200; group average rate; average increase rate per group = (Cs − Cc)/Cc. Participation levels categorized by rate: very low (0–0.2], low (0.2–0.4], medium (0.4–0.6], high (0.6–0.8], very high (0.8–1]. Statistical analysis: One-way ANOVA tested differences across regions and groups for each measure. Most measures showed no significant regional differences, except incentives for extraverts (p<0.05). Within regions, group-level effects did not differ significantly, supporting reproducibility. ANOVA tested personality differences for each measure.

- SEM/path analysis: External pressure influenced participation via subjective norms; regeneration information influenced participation via perceived behavioral control for both personality groups (H1a, H1b supported). Estimated impacts (indirect effects): EP→SN→RP (All: 0.197; Introversion: 0.110; Extraversion: 0.256). RI→PBC→RP (All: 0.187; Introversion: 0.199; Extraversion: 0.177). - Enhancing external pressure experiments (H2a, H2b supported): All three measures increased participation. Rank of effectiveness: incentives > leading role of representatives > enhancing communication. Many groups reached high participation with incentives; leading role often achieved upper-medium; communication achieved medium to upper-medium. - Personality effects for external pressure (H4 supported with significance): Significant differences between introversion and extraversion for all three measures in both regions (ANOVA p<0.05 or p<0.01). Extraverts consistently had higher participation levels and larger average increase rates than introverts across measures. Incentives produced the largest gains especially for extraverts; leading role was next; communication was lowest. - Providing regeneration information experiments (H3a, H3b supported): All three measures increased participation. Rank of effectiveness: regeneration case sharing > policy advocacy > technology popularization. Case sharing often achieved high participation; policy advocacy achieved upper-medium; technology popularization yielded smaller gains (often remaining lower-medium). - Personality effects for information measures (H4 supported directionally but not statistically): ANOVA showed no significant differences by personality for policy advocacy, technology popularization, or case sharing (p>0.05). However, averages indicated introverts generally had higher participation rates and greater increases than extraverts, especially for case sharing and policy advocacy. - Regional difference: Only incentives for extraverts showed a significant regional difference in effect (p<0.05), though positive in both regions. Post-experiment probing suggested Region A residents had prior real-life experience with incentives, potentially amplifying extraverts’ responsiveness. - Overall effectiveness ranking across all measures and personalities: incentives, regeneration case sharing, leading role of representatives, enhancing communication, policy advocacy, regeneration technology popularization.

Findings align with TPB: external pressure modulates subjective norms; information enhances perceived behavioral control, both increasing participation. Incentives were most effective due to tangible near-term and longer-term benefits (goods; fee reductions), motivating action through benefit-seeking. Regeneration case sharing effectively conveyed concrete processes and outcomes, building confidence and perceived controllability. The leading role of representatives leverages exemplary effects and trust; its impact depends on closeness and credibility of representatives. Enhancing communication underpins other measures by fostering trust and relationships, though experimental time limits and weak pre-existing ties likely dampened observed effects. Policy advocacy provides macro-level assurance and legitimacy; technology popularization builds understanding from a professional/technical perspective despite modest immediate effects. Personality dynamics: Extraverts’ greater sociability and engagement amplify the effects of external-pressure measures (communication, representative influence, incentives). Introverts’ preference for listening and reflection makes information measures, especially case sharing and policy advocacy, comparatively more effective. Lack of significant statistical differences for information measures by personality may reflect that both types can process information, with variability driven more by cognitive interests/abilities than by introversion-extraversion per se. The regional difference for incentives among extraverts likely stems from prior real-life incentive exposure prompting stronger associative responses among more socially active extraverts. Implications: Combine measures, tailoring by personality and context. Strengthen community activities and trust networks to enhance representative influence and communication; ensure credible, transparent incentive programs; systematically disseminate policies, technologies, and especially relatable case stories via online/offline channels. Use personality-aware outreach—more interactive engagement and detailed incentive/policy info for extraverts; moderate, non-intrusive information delivery for introverts.

This study integrates TPB with SEM and controlled behavioral experiments to identify and validate guidance measures that enhance residents’ participation in urban settlement regeneration decision-making. Across regions and personalities, the effectiveness ranking is: incentives (highest), regeneration case sharing, leading role of representatives, enhancing communication, policy advocacy, and regeneration technology popularization. External-pressure measures are significantly more effective for extraverts; information measures show no statistically significant personality differences but generally favor introverts in average effects. Practical recommendations include: offering credible incentives (fee reductions, in-kind goods, maintenance services), strengthening representative leadership and communication, building robust online/offline information platforms, and regularly sharing successful cases and technology knowledge. Theoretically, the work enriches TPB applications by incorporating personality into behavior guidance and demonstrates the utility of behavioral experiments for verifying guidance measures. Future research should extend experiments to other cities and more complex experimental settings, examine urban–rural personality differences, increase sample sizes, and further analyze regional variations in incentive effectiveness.

- Geographic scope: Data and experiments focused on Harbin’s development zone and city center; generalizability to other cities/regions requires further study. - Experimental environment: Idealized settings with limited subjects may not fully capture real-world complexities; larger, more diverse samples and settings are needed. - Personality scope: Only introversion–extraversion dichotomy considered; broader or nuanced personality dimensions could be explored. - Regional incentive effect: The significant regional difference for extraverts on incentives was explained via post-experimental surveys; deeper, context-specific analysis is warranted. - Urban–rural differences: Not addressed; future work should examine personality and guidance effects across urban and rural contexts.