3.1. Important Keyword
Table 2 shows the results of the frequency analysis of the participants. The number of whole words is 10,344 and the number of words appearing is 1697. Looking at the number of words by participant, the number of words mentioned by the students is the highest, at 5674, followed by the facilitators (553), and the residents (50). Among the top 20 words, ‘student’ is the most mentioned word, followed by ‘village’, ‘designer’, ‘Sejong’, ‘design’, ‘participation’, ‘resident’, ‘university’, ‘proceeding’, and ‘activities’. These are the words related to people, institutions, and activities participating in the urban regeneration. By participant, the most commonly mentioned words are ‘designer’, ‘Sejong’, ‘resident’, and ‘student’.
On the other hand, the difference is the blue cells shown in
Table 2. The facilitators mainly use words such as ‘participation’, ‘recruitment’, ‘program’, ‘interest’, ‘survey’, and ‘event’, while the students and residents do not use them as much. The facilitators seem to consider the participation and the process of the project operation important. Students usually use words such as ‘we’, ‘workshop’, ‘time’, ‘idea’, and ‘garbage’, while the facilitators and residents do not use them as much. These words focus on solving problems (waste) together through workshops. The residents use the words ‘rest area’, ‘improvement’, ‘appearance’, ‘support’, ‘video’, ‘effort’, ‘opinion’, ‘auxiliary entrance’, ‘space’, ‘people’, and ‘expectation’ more than the other participants. These words show the support or expectation for improvement and address the places where the problems occur (the rest area, the auxiliary entrance, and spaces).
Due to the nature of SNS, the facilitators focus on project promotion and information delivery, and the students focus on recording the activity process. On the other hand, residents express their emotions frankly, because they focus on commenting. Therefore, with the residents’ comments, the opinion analysis was conducted, and the residents’ thoughts on the Student Village Design Project were analyzed. As shown in
Table 3, the total number of words related to emotions are 313, with 125 positive and 98 negative words. Comparing the number of positive and negative words, the residents generally express positive feelings about the project. Looking at the positive words, ‘good’ appears the most, followed by ‘expecting’, ‘improving’, ‘supportive’, and ‘great’. The characteristics of positive words, in addition to their own satisfaction, have many expressions, such as expected meanings (‘expecting’, ‘improving’, ‘great’, ‘mendable’, and ‘progressive’), and cheering meanings (‘supportive’, ‘nice’, ‘passionate’, ‘proud’, and ‘commendable’).
Among the negative words, ‘problematic’ appears the most, followed by ‘tough’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘bad’, and ‘sorry’. The words relating to dissatisfaction include ‘uncomfortable’, ‘hard’, ‘neglecting’, ‘severe’, and ‘unpleasant’. Also, unexpected emotions, such as ‘bad’, ‘excessive’, ‘difficult’, and ‘insignificant’, appear.
The results of the frequency analysis show the keywords of the commonalities and differences which participants perceive in urban regeneration projects. Everyone is interested in the institution that runs the project in common, so it can be seen that the role of the participants is more important. Looking at the role of analyzing the difference in perception by each participant, the role of the facilitators is to create relationships between people in the process of promoting the project. The students have a role in driving step-by-step activities, and the residents have a role in determining the environmental problems or improvements. The results of the residents’ estimation analysis show that residents have distrust of or conflict with urban regeneration projects; however, with the students, there is the potential to increase the positive emotions of the residents. Meanwhile, the negative emotions of the residents are due to dissatisfaction with the residential environment problem; therefore, they can be converted to positive emotions after improvement.
3.2. Characteristics of Projects Recognized by Participants
To understand which phrases participants used the most, the frequency of phrases of 3-g appearing simultaneously was analyzed. The following
Table 4,
Table 5,
Table 6 and
Table 7 arrange the top 10 phrases in the order of frequency, and they show all the phrases of the same frequency corresponding to the top 10.
Table 4 shows the result of analyzing the frequency of phrases of three words appearing simultaneously among all the data. The words of the highest frequency are ‘student’, ‘village’, and ‘designer’, who leads the project and the students mention a lot. Next, ‘the campus town of Sejong University’ means the project site, and ‘the recruitment of village designers’ seems to have a lot of content related to the recruitment of the students who lead the project. From the 3rd to the 6th, the phrases pertaining to ‘small design’, ‘student design’, and ‘village design’ appear frequently, which can replace ‘student village designer’ or ‘student village design’. From the 8th, the phrases such as ‘a lot of interest in participation’, ‘discovering local agendas’, and ‘nth designer workshop (program)’ appear. It is important for people to induce public participation and interest, show the process of discovering local agendas, and inform about the contents of the workshop (program).
Table 5,
Table 6 and
Table 7 show the frequency of phrases of 3-g appearing simultaneously by participant. The following differences are shown for each participant, except for the similar meaning to ‘the Student Village Designer’ and ‘the Student Village Design’. As shown in
Table 5, the fifth place for the facilitators was the request for ‘interest’ and ‘participation’, and the ninth place was ‘the resident participation type’. In
Table 6, the third place for the students was related to ‘the nth workshop’ and qualification of ‘the nth Student Village Designer’. Since the Student Village Design Project has been conducted three times, students recognized the roles of designers and carried out their roles. As ‘the discovering local agendas’ ranked in ninth place, the students seemed to value it. As shown in
Table 7, the residents take on a different complexion from the other participants. The first place is ‘expecting remarkable activities’, which has the meaning of supporting the thriving project, and the ‘campus town support center of Sejong University’ means the organization that supports this project.
By analyzing the frequency of phrases of 3-g appearing simultaneously, the centrality value was compared to figure out what the participants focused on (
Table 8). As a result, the words having the highest centrality are ‘to be’, followed by ‘many’, ‘design’, ‘designer’, ‘we’, ‘student’, region’, and ‘similar’. The words ‘to be’ are the central words (centrality 162) in what students mention, and the word ‘many’ is the same as that (centrality 52) for residents.
Looking at the differences among the participants, the facilitators mentioned the words related to people, such as ‘participation’, ‘town’, ‘region’, ‘investigation’, ‘project’, ‘event’, ‘campus’, ‘recruitment’, and ‘program’, etc. The students mainly mentioned the words ‘we’, ‘workshop’, ‘time’, ‘treat’, and ‘make.’ The residents mainly mentioned the words ‘great’, ‘rest area’, ‘problem’, ‘improvement’, ‘appearance’, ‘thinking’, and ‘video’. They use the verbs with opinions such as ‘nice’, ‘know’, ‘don’t know’, ‘for’, and ‘through’.
From the above, the facilitators focus on the contents to encourage recruitment and participation, investigate, and inform events. The students focus on the contents of the workshop process, and the work they create. The residents mention different contents from the facilitators and students. They mention the places where the residential environment needs to be improved, and the places to improve in the future.
The results of the 3-g analysis explain words describing urban regeneration projects by each participant, which shows that urban regeneration projects are viewed from different perspectives. The facilitators focus on the residents’ participation; the students focus on the student-led discovering agenda; and the residents focus on the environmental changes. In other words, from the participant’s point of view, it can be seen that the facilitators pay attention to the participants; the students pay attention to the process; and the residents pay attention to the problems and results.
3.3. Semantic Network Analysis
To analyze the relationships between the words and the grouping of the main contents, a network analysis was conducted. However, there is a limit to identifying networks and groups, due to the large number of words. Thus, the data which have an average appearance frequency of two or more were extracted, and the analysis was conducted focusing on the repeated contents. As shown in
Table 9, the total number of words (node) shown in the network analysis is 393, and the facilitators have the largest number with 256, followed by the students with 146, and the residents with 25.
Unlike the data, which were analyzed (
Table 9) considering all the appearances, the number of words used by the students is lower than that of the facilitators. This shows that the facilitators use more repeated phrases. The total number in an undirected multi-graph is 23, with 21 in the students, 10 in the residents, and 3 in the facilitators. From this, it seems that the students talk about various stories, while the facilitators talk about a common story. In addition, looking at the size of the main graph by participant, the facilitators have 252 connected nodes, and the students have 96 connected nodes. As for the residents, two or three words are connected only by lines, so the main graph does not appear.
Figure 1a is the visualization effect of the network analysis for the whole content. The centrality of the words ‘design’, ‘designer’, ‘campus’, ‘town’, ‘student’, and ‘university’ is significant. Looking at the connected words by groups, the contents include holding awards and events, discovering local agendas, problem-solving processes, surveys, and the participation of residents. The facilitators inform the operation process of the project, and the students’ activities appear in a specific group; however, the activities of the residents do not appear.
Figure 1b shows the connections of the words mentioned by the facilitators. In the facilitator’s network graph analysis, the additional words with high centrality are ‘participation’, ‘preparation’, ‘recruitment’, and ‘activity’. Looking at the connected words by groups, the contents are related to the recruitment of Student Village Designers, the workshop process, preparation for awards and events, surveys, submission of the results, announcements, and the places where residential environmental problems arise.
Figure 1c shows the connections of the words mentioned by the students. In addition to ‘design’ and ‘designer’, ‘village’ and ‘student’ are the words of high centrality in the analysis of the students’ graph. The next highest words, ‘region’, ‘treat’, and ‘Sejong University’, serve as hubs. Looking at each group, the contents are related to the discovering of agendas through interviews of residents, problem-solving methods, and the place where the school boundary problems arise. In addition to these, the contents include local issues, communication, and cultural streets.
Figure 1d shows the connections of the words mentioned by the residents. The main graph does not exist; it is a linear graph with 10 segments. Utilizing teams, surveys, residents’ opinions, efforts and improvements, and the places where residential environmental problems arise are mentioned.
Through the results of the semantic network analysis, it can be identified that the keywords and topics about urban regeneration projects that each participant emphasizes are different. The facilitators cover topics such as project planning and performance, events, and surveys. The students cover the workshop process as a topic. The residents don’t seem to have a leitmotif, since regional issues and opinions appear in various words. When the participants describe urban regeneration projects, the facilitators focus on the project process, and the students focus on participation in the problem-solving process.