Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article titled "Collaborating with Local Communities to Identify Improvement Priorities for Historic Urban Landscape Based on Residents’ Satisfaction: An Application of Asymmetric Impact-Performance Analysis in Dandong, China" discusses the importance of involving local communities in the conservation and regeneration of historic urban landscapes. While the article provides some valuable insights, there are several potential biases and limitations that need to be considered.

One potential bias in the article is its focus on the positive aspects of involving local communities in urban conservation. The authors argue that local residents' satisfaction should be prioritized in order to enhance the quality of the urban environment. While this perspective is important, it fails to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest between different stakeholders, such as developers and heritage preservationists. It would have been beneficial for the article to explore these conflicts and discuss strategies for resolving them.

Additionally, the article relies heavily on subjective measures of residents' satisfaction without providing a clear definition or explanation of how this satisfaction is measured. This lack of clarity raises questions about the validity and reliability of the findings presented. It would have been helpful for the authors to provide more information about their methodology and data collection process.

Furthermore, the article does not adequately address potential risks or challenges associated with involving local communities in urban conservation. For example, there may be instances where residents' preferences conflict with preservation guidelines or best practices. The article could have explored these challenges and discussed strategies for addressing them.

Another limitation of the article is its narrow focus on one case study in Dandong, China. While this case study provides valuable insights into community involvement in urban conservation, it may not be representative of other contexts or regions. The authors could have provided a more comprehensive analysis by including examples from different cities or countries.

Overall, while the article highlights important considerations for involving local communities in urban conservation, it has several limitations and biases that need to be taken into account. Future research should aim to address these limitations and provide a more balanced and comprehensive analysis of community involvement in urban conservation.