Public Art in Urban Gateway Spaces: A Public Reception Evaluation Framework and Corresponding Design Strategies

Yishu Huang

doi:10.54097/h4n7b624

Authors

Yishu Huang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/h4n7b624

Keywords:

Urban Gateway Space, Public Art, Public Reception, Evaluation System, Design Strategy, AHP

Abstract

Against the backdrop of urbanization, public art in urban gateway spaces is increasingly crucial for shaping city image, yet its development often faces a disconnect between professional evaluation and public perception. From a "public acceptance" perspective, this study adopted a bottom-up approach to establish an evaluation system comprising four dimensions and eight indicators. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), we determined indicator weights, identifying "cultural identity" and "place compatibility" as the most significant factors. A questionnaire survey covering five representative urban gateway spaces verified the system's reliability and validity, while revealing significant differences in needs among various user groups. Based on these findings, we proposed three design strategies: "Anchoring Common Needs, Layering Differential Needs, and Dynamic Iterative Optimization." A comparative analysis of three representative cases demonstrated substantially higher public satisfaction scores (91.2%-93.1%) for projects aligning well with these strategies compared to those with poor alignment (44.4%), validating the strategies' effectiveness. The main contribution of this research lies in establishing a complete methodological framework from empirical evaluation to design strategy, providing both theoretical foundation and practical guidance for the design and optimization of public art in Chinese urban gateway spaces, while offering valuable insights for localized practices in rapidly developing urban contexts and other developing countries facing similar challenges.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] H. Ç. Altınçekiç, B. Ergin, and M. Tanfer, "A study on the evaluation of city identity in terms of spatial quality throughout history (Taksim Square)," Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 132–148, 2015.

[2] A. L. Knoll, J. Mikuni, and E. Specker, "Looking at people looking at art: observations of art interactions in an everyday urban environment," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 16, p. 1658946, 2025.

[3] M. Cheung, N. Smith, and O. Craven, "The impacts of public art on cities, places and people’s lives," The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2021.

[4] I. Leijdekkers, "Public art: Attracting tourists or challenging one's perception? A qualitative research on the value of top-down and bottom-up realized art in the public space," Master's thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2021.

[5] A. Dębicka, K. Olejniczak, K. Słuchocka, and A. Nadolny, "The role of street art in the competitiveness and creativity of cities: case study of Poland," Teka Komisji Urbanistyki i Architektury Oddział PAN w Krakowie, no. 51, 2023.

[6] G. Chen and Z. Zhu, "Research on the public perception effect of urban public art," Art Work, no. 4, pp. 50–60, 2024.

[7] S. Tai and H. J. Song, "Research on acceptance intention of metro public art based on TAM," Urban Mass Transit, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 284–290, 2024.

[8] W. Y. Yang, "Public art acceptance mechanism and its application in landscape design," Doctoral dissertation, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an, China, 2021.

[9] D. Ruiz Bargueño, V. A. P. Salomon, F. A. S. Marins, P. Palominos, and L. A. Marrone, "State of the art review on the analytic hierarchy process and urban mobility," Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 24, p. 3179, 2021.

[10] M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antuchevičienė, "MCDM approaches for evaluating urban and public transportation systems: a short review of recent studies," Transport, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 411–425, 2022.

[11] Y. Zhang, C. Zou, and C. Kim, "Research on the influencing factors of user satisfaction based on basic characteristics of public art—a case study of airport public art," Journal of Korea Multimedia Society, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1167–1174, 2022.

[12] J. Ning, T. Lyu, and Y. Wang, "Exploring the built environment factors in the metro that influence the ridership and the market share of the elderly and students," Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 9966794, 2021.

[13] Y. Cheng, J. Chen, J. Li, L. Li, G. Hou, and X. Xiao, "Research on the preference of public art design in urban landscapes: evidence from an event-related potential study," Land, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1883, 2023.

[14] T. Stevenson and D. Evans, "Public art for placemaking and urban renewal: Insights from three regional Australian cities," Cities, vol. 127, p. 104732, 2022.

[15] F. F. Kong, "Research on the form of public art from the cross perspective of design and communication," Journal of Oriental Design Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 34–43, 2022.

[16] L. Karolina, "Signaling smartness: Smart cities and digital art in public spaces," Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 20–32, 2020.

[17] H. A. E. Elsabagh, S. Y. H. Bashandy, N. M. Abd Elaziz, and N. A. Abd El Aziz, "The impact of 3d public art on improving visual image and identity of urban spaces," Journal of Urban Research, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 76–102, 2022.

[18] J. Carpenter and C. Horvath, "Co-creation and the city: arts-based methods and participatory approaches in urban planning," Urban Planning, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 311–314, 2022.

[19] G. Robazza, "Build art, build resilience: Co-creation of public art as a tactic to improve community resilience," The Journal of Public Space, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 283–300, 2020.

[20] S. J. Tepper, "Unfamiliar objects in familiar places: The public response to art‐in‐architecture," International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 283–316, 2000.