簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 蕭書凡
Hsiao, Shu-Fan
論文名稱： 台灣公共性導向複合使用建築再生的使用者經驗設計探討
A Study of User Experience Design in Publicness-oriented Mixed-use Building Regeneration in Taiwan
指導教授： 楊佳翰
Yang, Chia-Han
黃仲菁
Huang, Chung-Ching
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 規劃與設計學院 - 創意產業設計研究所
Institute of Creative Industries Design
論文出版年： 2026
畢業學年度： 114
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 265
中文關鍵詞： 建築再生 、公共性 、複合使用 、使用者經驗設計 、早期設計流程
外文關鍵詞： building regeneration, publicness, mixed-use, user experience design, earlystage design process
相關次數： 點閱：7  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 近年來，台灣許多建築再生計畫透過文化、商業、觀光及社區等複合使用，重新賦予既有建築新的功能，並以公共性作為重要訴求。然而，空間的對外開放與功能多元，並不必然形成持續且包容的公共生活。建築再生的規劃往往較容易聚焦於空間功能、活動內容及目標客群，而對日常使用、非消費型活動，以及不同群體如何共同使用空間的討論相對有限。因此，本研究從使用者經驗與服務設計的角度出發，探討如何在建築再生的早期規劃中，使公共性成為可以被討論與檢視的設計議題。
    本研究首先透過文件分析，整理三十二個台灣公共性導向複合使用建築再生案例，辨識案例類型及反覆出現的公共性問題。其次，以新富町文化市場與駁二藝術特區作為參照案例，整理案例中的設計條件，並轉化為一套包含五個階段、九項工具的早期使用者中心設計流程。最後，以二〇一九年規劃階段的台南原魚市場為情境，邀請六位具建築或設計背景的參與者進行一日設計工作坊，並透過問卷、觀察紀錄、工具成果、設計原型及後續訪談，了解流程在實際操作中的情形。
    研究結果顯示，建築再生中的公共性不只與空間是否開放有關，也涉及規劃者如何想像使用者、如何支持日常及非消費型使用，以及後續治理與營運如何回應不同群體的需求。在工作坊中，當參與者透過具體人物、使用情境與檢核問題思考提案時，較能注意到原先不容易被看見的使用者與可能的排除情形；相較之下，場域脈絡、治理與營運相關內容仍較難被充分轉化。整體而言，本研究所發展的流程提供了一種將抽象公共性帶入早期設計討論的方式，並可作為後續工具調整及實務研究的初步參考。

    In recent years, many building regeneration projects in Taiwan have introduced cultural, commercial, tourism, and community uses to give existing buildings new functions, while presenting publicness as an important objective. However, physical openness and programme diversity do not necessarily result in sustained and inclusive public life. Early planning often focuses on spatial functions, activities, and target audiences, while giving less attention to everyday use, non-consuming activities, and the ways in which different groups may share a regenerated space. From the perspectives of user experience and service design, this study explores how publicness may be introduced as a discussable and reviewable issue during the early planning of building regeneration.
    The research was conducted in three stages. First, documentary analysis was used to examine 32 publicness-oriented mixed-use building regeneration cases in Taiwan and to identify recurring case types and publicness-related concerns. Second, Xinfu Market and Pier-2 Art Center were selected as reference cases. Conditions identified from these cases were translated into a five-phase, nine-tool early-stage user-centred design process. Third, the Tainan Former Fish Market, framed at its 2019 planning stage, was used as the setting for a one-day design workshop involving six participants with architecture- or design related backgrounds. Questionnaires, observation records, completed tools, design prototypes, and follow-up interviews were used to examine how the proposed process was applied during the workshop.
    The findings suggest that publicness in building regeneration concerns more than whether a space is physically open. It is also related to how users are imagined during planning, how everyday and non-consuming uses are supported, and how governance and operation respond to different groups. During the workshop, participants appeared more able to notice less-visible users and possible forms of exclusion when they considered their proposals through specific user portraits, use situations, and review questions. In comparison, issues concerning situated context, governance, and operation were more difficult to translate into the proposals. Overall, the proposed process offers one possible way of bringing the abstract idea of publicness into early-stage design discussion. The findings may serve as a preliminary reference for further tool refinement and future research in building regeneration practice.

    摘要 ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements v Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background 1 1.1.1 Global and Taiwanese Trends in Building Regeneration 1 1.1.2 Publicness-oriented Building Regeneration towards Mixed Use 1 1.1.3 Expanding Stakeholder Constellations and the Challenges of Publicness 2 1.2 Research Motivation 3 Industrial Motivation 3 Academic Motivation 3 1.3 Research Objectives 4 1.4 Research Questions 5 1.5 Research Flow 5 1.6 Key Terminology and Concepts 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 2.1 Building Regeneration: Concepts and Context 8 2.1.1 Concept and Evolution of Building Regeneration 8 2.1.2 Publicness-Oriented Mixed-Use Building Regeneration 8 2.1.3 Building Regeneration in Taiwan: Policy and Practice 9 2.2 Governance, Evaluation, and Publicness in Building Regeneration 10 2.2.1 Governance Models and Stakeholder Constellations 10 2.2.2 Evaluation Frameworks for Building Regeneration Outcomes 10 2.2.3 Concepts and Dimensions of Publicness 11 2.2.4 Recurrent Publicness Problems in Regenerated Spaces 11 2.3 User Experience (UX): Concepts, Roles, and Methods 12 2.3.1 Concept and Evolution of User Experience 12 2.3.2 User Experience in Design Processes 13 2.3.3 User Experience and Publicness: Conceptual Linkages 13 2.3.4 UX Tools and Methods for Publicness and User Experience 14 2.3.4.A Stakeholder and Actor Mapping 15 2.3.4.B Scenario and User-journey Mapping 16 2.3.4.C Insight Clustering and Affinity Mapping 16 2.3.4.D Workshop-based Co-creation 16 2.3.5 Early-stage Decision-making, Path Dependency, and the Scope for Later Revision 16 2.4 Architects in Building Regeneration 17 2.4.1 Architects' Roles and Work Processes 17 2.4.2 Users from Architects' Perspective 18 2.4.3 Sources of Information about Users 18 2.4.4 Limitations of User Information 19 2.5 Literature Synthesis, Conceptual Boundaries, and Research Gap 19 2.5.1 Integrating the Four Literature Strands 20 2.5.2 Conceptual Boundaries and Analytical Scope 21 2.5.3 Research Gap and Implications for the Research Design 23 Chapter 3 Research Method 25 3.1 Research Framework 25 3.2 Research Approach 27 3.3 Research Methods 27 3.3.1 Document Analysis 27 3.3.2 Case Study Approach 28 3.3.2.1 Case-selection Circularity 28 3.3.3 Design Workshop 28 3.3.4 Questionnaire Survey 30 3.3.5 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview 30 3.3.5.1 Interview Sample Boundary 31 3.3.5.2 Translation Reliability 31 3.3.6 Workshop Observation and Facilitator Field Notes 31 3.4 Case Introduction 32 3.4.1 Selection Criteria: Workshop Case 32 3.4.2 Case Background: Tainan Former Fish Market 32 3.4.3 Cases with Relatively Stronger Documented Publicness Characteristics for Phase 2 33 3.5 Data Collection Procedures 33 3.5.1 Preparation and Source Appraisal of the Site Evidence Pack 33 3.6 Data Analysis Methods 35 3.6.1 Documentary Coding, Cross-case Comparison, and Pattern Development 35 3.6.2 Case-to-Requirement and Requirement-to-Tool Translation 38 3.6.2.1 Stage A: Reformulating Case Findings as Required Process Capacities 38 3.6.2.2 Stage B: Refinement through Candidate Publicness-supporting Conditions 39 3.6.2.3 Stage C: Consolidation into Design Requirements 39 3.6.2.4 Stage D: Operationalisation into Tools and Process Sequence 40 3.6.2.5 Documentation, Internal Alignment, and Evidence Boundary 40 3.6.3 Prototype Feature Traceability Analysis 42 3.7 Research Ethics 42 3.8 Research Flow and Timeline 43 Chapter 4 Research Findings and Process Development 44 4.1 Chapter Overview 44 4.2 Case Pool and Typology of Publicness-oriented Mixed-use Building Regeneration in Taiwan 46 4.2.1 Case Pool Construction and Selection Criteria 46 4.2.2 Case Pool Overview and Case Tiers 47 4.2.3 Typological Analysis 48 4.2.4 Key Characteristics of the Current Development Landscape 49 4.2.5 Section Summary 50 4.3 Recurring Publicness Problems in Taiwan's Mixed-use Building Regeneration Cases 50 Summary of Six Recurring Publicness Problems 51 4.4 Insights from Better-performing Cases 53 4.4.1 Xinfu Market: Food Culture, Local Memory, and Documented Everyday Anchors 55 4.4.2 Pier-2 Art Center: Outdoor Access, Programme Diversity, and Urban-scale Publicness Conditions 55 4.4.3 Cross-case Insights: Candidate Publicness-supporting Conditions 55 4.4.4 Section Summary 57 4.5 From Case Findings to Design Requirements 57 4.5.1 Role and Boundary of the Translation 57 4.5.2 Step 1 — From Six Problem Patterns to Required Process Capacities 58 4.5.3 Step 2 — From Five Candidate Conditions to Requirement Refinement 61 4.5.4 Step 3 — Consolidating the Inputs into Eight Design Requirements 63 4.5.5 Final Set of Eight Design Requirements 64 4.5.6 Section Synthesis and Transition 66 4.6 Operationalising the Design Requirements through the Proposed Tool Process 67 4.6.1 Operationalisation Principles and Overall Process Architecture 67 4.6.2 Tool-by-tool Development and Canvas Design 68 4.6.3 Rationale for Tool Order and Inter-tool Dependencies 71 4.6.4 Coverage of the Eight Design Requirements across the Nine Tools 73 4.6.5 Relationship to the UX and Design-thinking Literature Reviewed in Chapter 2 77 4.6.6 The Complete Derivation Logic: From Case Evidence to Tool Process 77 4.7 Preliminary Workshop Implementation: The Tainan Former Fish Market Case 79 4.7.1 Workshop Site: The Tainan Former Fish Market (2019 Scenario) 79 4.7.2 Workshop Design and Participants 79 4.7.3 Workshop Procedure 81 4.7.4 Group Prototype Outputs 83 4.7.5 Data Collection and Evaluation Approach 85 4.8 Workshop Findings and Preliminary Evaluation 85 4.8.1 Data Sources and Evaluation Approach 86 4.8.2 Pre-workshop Baseline 87 4.8.3 Post-workshop Self-evaluation 88 4.8.4 Tool-level Feedback 90 4.8.5 Prototype-level Publicness Characteristics 94 Interview-based Supplementary Evidence 95 4.8.6 Prototype Feature Traceability 96 4.8.7 Observation of Workshop Process 98 4.8.8 Themes from Post-workshop Interviews 99 4.8.9 Summary of Preliminary Workshop Evidence 101 4.9 Chapter Summary 103 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion 105 5.1 Overview of Key Findings 105 5.1.1 Summary of the Research Process 105 5.1.2 Alignment between Research Objectives, Findings, and Discussion 106 5.2 Reframing Publicness in Mixed-use Building Regeneration 109 5.2.1 Publicness beyond Ownership, Openness, and Activation 110 5.2.2 Mixed-use and Activation as Insufficient Proxies for Publicness 111 5.2.3 Publicness as Everyday, Inclusive, and Non-commercial Use 111 5.2.4 Negotiated Coexistence, Legitimacy, Power, and Institutional Durability 113 5.2.5 Publicness as Operationally Produced 113 5.2.6 Publicness as an Early-stage and Lifecycle Design Criterion 114 5.3 Decision Pathways through Which Publicness May Be Constrained 115 5.3.1 Limitations in User Framing and Representation 116 5.3.2 Temporal Concentration and Weakly Represented Everyday Use 117 5.3.3 Conditions Constraining Non-consuming Access 117 5.3.4 Potential Misalignment between Governance and Publicness Intentions 117 5.3.5 A Lifecycle Model: Prefiguration, Enactment, and Revision 118 5.4 From Case-derived Conditions to Design Propositions 119 5.4.1 Everydayness as a Publicness Proposition (from I1) 119 5.4.2 Non-consuming Access (from I2) 119 5.4.3 Living Heritage and Local Embeddedness (from I3) 120 5.4.4 Governance–Publicness Alignment (from I4) 120 5.4.5 Established Arrangements and the Scope for Later Intervention (from I5) 120 5.4.6 Compatibility as a Cross-cutting Proposition 121 5.5 The Role of UX / Service Design in the Early-stage BR Process 124 5.5.1 Making Less-visible Users and Claims Representationally Visible 124 5.5.2 Turning Publicness into Situated and Discussable Questions 125 5.5.3 Documenting Provisional Process-to-output Linkages 125 5.5.4 UX / Service Design as Discussion Infrastructure, Not a Solution Generator 126 5.6 Discussion of Workshop Findings 128 5.6.1 Familiar Spatial and Feasibility-oriented Reasoning Recurred during the Workshop 128 5.6.2 More Complete Engagement Appeared Where Abstract Values Were Converted into Situated Checks 129 5.6.3 The Weakest Workshop Moments Indicate Where the Current Process Provided Insufficient Support 129 5.6.4 Participant-reported Short-term Reframing without Evidence of Practical Transfer 130 5.6.5 The Translation Gap between Analysis and Prototype 131 5.6.6 Governance and Operation Remained Under-specified in the Present Implementation 132 5.6.7 Integrative Interpretation: Representation, Translation, and Institutionalisation 133 5.7 Contributions and Practical Implications 134 5.7.1 Theoretical Contribution 134 5.7.2 Methodological Contribution 135 5.7.3 Practical Contribution 136 5.7.4 Suggested Use Scenarios for Publicness-oriented BR Practice 137 5.7.5 Conditions for Future Application 138 5.8 Limitations 138 5.9 Future Research 139 5.9.1 Stage 1: Validating the Diagnostic Foundation 139 5.9.2 Stage 2: Refining and Comparing the Process 139 5.9.3 Stage 3: Real-project and Longitudinal Evaluation 140 5.9.4 Comparative Research beyond Taiwan 140 5.10 Conclusion 142 References 145 Appendix A｜Full Case Pool Database (n=32) 152 Appendix A (continued)｜Case Tier Summary by Typology 157 Appendix A (continued)｜Case Source Documentation 159 Appendix B｜Case Coding Framework and Publicness Problem Codes 168 Appendix C｜Cases with Relatively Stronger Documented Publicness Characteristics — Dossiers 172 Appendix D Nine Design Tools and Blank Canvases (T1–T9) 178 Appendix E Tainan Former Fish Market Site Evidence Pack 189 Appendix F Workshop Protocol and Consent Materials 193 Appendix F (continued) Ethics and Data Management 208 Appendix G｜Questionnaire Instruments and Anonymised Results 212 Appendix H Interview Guide and Selected Excerpts 218 Appendix H (continued) Observation, Interview, Prototype, and Process-linkage Evidence 224 Appendix H (continued) Workshop Prototype Outcomes 231 Appendix H (continued) Prototype Feature and Process-linkage Matrix 233 Appendix H (continued) Interview Participant Overview, Selected Quotes & Theme Summary 238 Appendix H (continued) Coding and Analysis Tables 242

    Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success. Sage.
    Annemans, M., Van Audenhove, C., Vermolen, H., & Heylighen, A. (2014). How to introduce experiential user data: The use of information in architects' design process. In Y. Lim, K. Niedderer, J. Redström, E. Stolterman, & A. Valtonen (Eds.), Design's Big Debates: DRS International Conference 2014 Proceedings (pp. 1626–1637). Design Research Society.
    Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
    Armstrong, G., Wilkinson, S., & Cilliers, E. J. (2023). A framework for sustainable adaptive reuse: Understanding vacancy and underuse in existing urban buildings. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 5, 985656. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2023.985656
    Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G., Aryal, A., Awada, M., Bergés, M., Billington, S. L., Boric-Lubecke, O., Ghahramani, A., Heydarian, A., Jazizadeh, F., Liu, R., Zhu, R., Marks, F., Roll, S., Seyedrezaei, M., Taylor, J. E., Höelscher, C., Khan, A., Langevin, J., … Zhao, J. (2022). Ten questions concerning human-building interaction research for improving the quality of life. Building and Environment, 226, 109681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109681
    Bosone, M., De Toro, P., Fusco Girard, L., Gravagnuolo, A., & Iodice, S. (2021). Indicators for ex-post evaluation of cultural heritage adaptive reuse impacts in the perspective of the circular economy. Sustainability, 13(9), 4759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094759
    Bottero, M., D'Alpaos, C., & Oppio, A. (2019). Ranking of adaptive reuse strategies for abandoned industrial heritage in vulnerable contexts: A multiple criteria decision aiding approach. Sustainability, 11(3), 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030785
    Bouncken, R. B., Laudien, S. M., Fredrich, V., & Görmar, L. (2018). Coopetition in coworking spaces: Value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space. Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0267-7
    Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
    Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T. (2004). Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ, 328(7451), 1312–1315.
    Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
    Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53.
    Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. D. (2011). Factors influencing the adaptive reuse of buildings. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 9(1), 32–46.
    Calabrò, F., & Della Spina, L. (2019). The public–private partnership for the enhancement of unused public buildings: An experimental model of economic feasibility project. Sustainability, 11(20), 5662.
    Çalışkan, E. B., & Pekeriçli, M. K. (2024). Strategies for improving briefing framework: An evaluation study with industry practitioners. GRID – Architecture Planning and Design Journal, 7(2), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.37246/grid.1278725
    Cantacuzino, S. (1975). New uses for old buildings. Architectural Press.
    Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorising contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative. Journal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.909518
    Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
    Cocola-Gant, A. (2016). Holiday rentals: The new gentrification battlefront. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 112–120.
    Colomb, C. (2012). Pushing the urban frontier: Temporary uses of space, city marketing, and the creative city discourse in 2000s Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(2), 131–152.
    Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
    Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
    de Magalhães, C., & Freire Trigo, S. (2017). Contracting out publicness: The private management of the urban public realm and its implications. Progress in Planning, 115, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2016.01.001
    Della Spina, L. (2021). Cultural heritage: A hybrid framework for ranking adaptive reuse strategies. Buildings, 11(3), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11030132
    Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
    Dorst, K. (2011). The core of "design thinking" and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
    Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.
    Douglas, J. (2006). Building adaptation (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
    Evans, G. (2009). Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Studies, 46(5–6), 1003–1040.
    Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 261–268). ACM.
    Fronczek-Munter, A. (2016). Usability briefing for hospital design: Exploring user needs and experiences to improve complex buildings (Doctoral dissertation). Technical University of Denmark.
    Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
    Gotham, K. F. (2005). Tourism gentrification: The case of New Orleans' Vieux Carré (French Quarter). Urban Studies, 42(7), 1099–1121.
    Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208977192
    Gravagnuolo, A., Angrisano, M., & Fusco Girard, L. (2019). Circular economy strategies in eight historic port cities: Criteria and indicators towards a circular city assessment framework. Sustainability, 11(13), 3512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133512
    Gravagnuolo, A., Micheletti, S., & Bosone, M. (2021). A participatory approach for "circular" adaptive reuse of cultural heritage: Building a heritage community in Salerno, Italy. Sustainability, 13(9), 4812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094812
    Gravari-Barbas, M., & Guinand, S. (Eds.). (2017). Tourism and gentrification in contemporary metropolises. Routledge.
    Guguo Preservation and Regeneration Foundation (財團法人古都保存再生文教基金會). (2019). 臺南市中西區原魚市場活化再利用公私協力工作坊委託專業服務案：成果報告書 [Public-private workshop on the adaptive reuse of the former fish market, West Central District, Tainan: Outcome report] (Unpublished report commissioned by the Tainan City Government Tourism Bureau 臺南市政府觀光旅遊局).
    Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2019). Universal methods of design, expanded and revised: 125 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.
    Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17.
    Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23–40.
    Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 3(1), 1–95. Morgan & Claypool.
    International Organization for Standardization. (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210:2010).
    International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018).
    International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210:2019).
    Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 43.
    Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306.
    Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28.
    Langston, C., & Shen, L.-Y. (2007). Application of the adaptive reuse potential model in Hong Kong: A case study of Lui Seng Chun. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 11(4), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2007.9637569
    Latham, D. (2000). Creative re-use of buildings (Vols. 1–2). Donhead Publishing.
    Law, E. L.-C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., & Kort, J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: A survey approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 719–728). ACM.
    Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press.
    Li, J., Dang, A., & Song, Y. (2022). Defining the ideal public space: A perspective from the publicness. Journal of Urban Management, 11(4), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2022.08.005
    Low, S., & Smith, N. (Eds.). (2006). The politics of public space. Routledge.
    Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. Routledge.
    Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press.
    McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. MIT Press.
    Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
    Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
    Németh, J. (2009). Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2463–2490.
    Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5–23.
    Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press.
    Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.
    Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books.
    Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Paragon House.
    Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
    Pemsel, S., Widén, K., & Hansson, B. (2010). Managing the needs of end-users in the design and delivery of construction projects. Facilities, 28(1/2), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771011011378
    Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2019). Adaptive reuse of the built heritage: Concepts and cases of an emerging discipline. Routledge.
    Preiser, W. F. E., & Vischer, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Assessing building performance. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
    Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1225–1253.
    Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
    Roberts, C. J., & Edwards, D. J. (2022). Post-occupancy evaluation: Identifying and mitigating implementation barriers to reduce environmental impact. Journal of Cleaner Production, 374, 133957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133957
    Roberts, C. J., Edwards, D. J., Hosseini, M. R., Mateo-Garcia, M., & Owusu-Manu, D.-G. (2019). Post-occupancy evaluation: A review of literature. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(9), 2084–2106. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2018-0390
    Rosenbaum, M. S., Otalora, M. L., & Ramírez, G. C. (2017). How to create a realistic customer journey map. Business Horizons, 60(1), 143–150.
    Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use development: Ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking? Planning Practice & Research, 11(1), 85–98.
    Royal Institute of British Architects. (2020). RIBA Plan of Work 2020: Overview. RIBA Publishing.
    Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.
    Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers.
    Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
    Sirowy, B. (2012). Among paradigms: Major ways of framing user-related problems in contemporary architectural discourse. FORMakademisk, 5(1), 81–111.
    Stam, L., Verbeek, P.-P., & Heylighen, A. (2020). Between specificity and openness: How architects deal with design-use complexities. Design Studies, 66, 54–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.010
    Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, "translations" and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
    Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53–60.
    Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
    Vafaie, F., Remøy, H., & Gruis, V. (2023). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: A systematic literature review of success factors. Habitat International, 142, 102926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102926
    van der Linden, V., Dong, H., & Heylighen, A. (2018). Architects' attitudes towards users: A spectrum of advocating and envisioning future use(rs) in design. Ardeth, 2, 196–216.
    Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598.
    Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
    Yung, E. H. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International, 36(3), 352–361.
    Zhu, J. (2023). Public space and its publicness in people-oriented urban regeneration: A case study of Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 47(7), 2319–2338. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2023.2279597
    Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Blackwell.
    Zukin, S. (2010). Naked city: The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford University Press.

    QR CODE