An Impact-Centered, Sustainable, Positive Experience Design Model

Abstract

The pursuit of sustainable well-being is one of the research objectives of positive experience design. Therefore, this paper aims to provide an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model. First, the literature review method was used to define the research status and concept of impact-centered, sustainable design. Second, an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model was constructed, and relevant formulas for concept generation and evaluation were proposed. Third, design verification was conducted through a workshop. Finally, the technology acceptance model questionnaire was used to evaluate and discuss the design model. An impact-centered sustainable positive design model was proposed, which included the important impact dimensions of sensory experience and meaningful experience on users’ qualities of life at different levels: healthy living (pleasure index and health behavior), harmonious community (social connectivity and social contribution), and livable environment (living environment and environmental contribution). Based on positive experience-related theory, this study takes long-term impacts as the starting point for a sustainable, positive experience design, which helps designers generate design concepts from a systematic and long-term perspective.

1. Introduction

In response to shifting human development patterns following globalization, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) called for development to address broader societal needs while addressing climate and environmental change [1]. Society, economy, and environment are the three pillars of sustainability; this means that sustainable development seeks a win–win situation of “economic growth” and “social and ecological development” [2]. In recent decades, the search for a more sustainable approach to development has become increasingly important in international politics and economics [3]. Social attention to sustainability has also helped transform design ideas. More design methods that consider social and ecological sustainability have emerged, such as nature-centered design [4], life-centered design [5], and value-sensitive design [6]. With this development, human-centered design is increasingly showing its limitations regarding sustainability.

In the field of positive experience design, researchers have been exploring how design can contribute to sustainable people’s well-being and achieve long-term goals. In recent studies, the user-centered research perspective has gradually changed, and scholars are beginning to explore how to design long-range positive impacts to achieve users’ long-term personal and social well-being. For example, Kermavnar has designed a serious game about COVID-19 knowledge to influence users’ behaviors and attitudes through short-term experiences [7]. In a framework of artificial intelligence systems established by Maden to support community well-being, more attention is paid to influencing residents’ happiness through community construction [8]. However, under a logical frame that is user-centered, there are no systematic design tools helping designers design from an impact perspective. Therefore, this paper attempted to construct an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model that integrates the system of user and environment into the design scope, providing a systematic design approach to achieving sustainable well-being.

The following sections of this paper are structured as follows: First, relevant research on positive experience design and the related literature on impact-centered design are reviewed. Then, in the first part of the study, an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model is constructed exploratively. Based on the existing theories, the corresponding design algorithms are proposed. The second part of the study conducts a feasibility verification and limitation analysis of the model through a design workshop. Finally, the paper’s academic and practical implications are discussed, and its contribution and future directions are summarized.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Positive Experience Design

Positive experience design, derived from positive psychology, is a possibility-driven positive value-creation activity that provides pleasant and meaningful interactive experiences for individuals and communities via innovative products, services, and systems. Thus, this design promotes individual well-being, community prosperity, and a flourishing future [9]. To meet user’s needs and optimize the experience process, scholars have developed a series of design models around positive experience design, as shown in

Table 1. The related literature on positive experience design.

Authors	Contributions	Source
Desmet P.M.A. (2015)	Regulating mood: The two-factor mood model helps designers identify and describe users’ moods to develop designs related to mood regulation.	[10]
Peters D. et al. (2018)	Changing behavior: The METUX model helps designers measure and design basic psychological needs related to user behavior.	[11]
Wiese L. et al. (2020)	Enhancing motivation: The multi-stage design framework model provides a visual design method to achieve user happiness by providing positive activities.	[12]
Wu C. et al. (2021)	Enriching experience: The positive experience design model of IoT intelligent products guides designers to design for individual pleasure experience, personal goal realization, group need satisfaction, and group relationship harmony.	[13]
Chen, K. (2022)	Improving cognition: The emotional interaction design framework model guides designers to improve user awareness by enhancing users’ emotional experiences.	[14]
Perrino C. H. et al. (2020)	Continuation of the positive experience cycle: The model designed for temporary harmony guides designers to create positive experiences from the perspective of changing users’ cognitive memories and plans.	[15]

.

Desmet brought eight mood types into the two-factor mood model to help designers identify and describe users’ moods and carry out the design related to mood regulation [10]. Peters believed that encouraging users to accomplish tasks and develop behavioral habits can improve their happiness and developed the Motivation, Engagement, and Thriving in User Experience (METUX) model to help designers measure the basic psychological needs that support user behavior [11]. Wiese built a multi-stage design framework for sustainable well-being, providing a visual design path for creating positive activities through product interactions to achieve users’ happiness [12]. Wu contributed a positive experience design model for intelligent products of the Internet of Things (IoT), which covers the design path from pleasurable experiences to personal significance and group relationships [13]. Chen developed an emotional interaction design framework model for children’s application development, guiding designers to enrich users’ pleasure and cognition by enhancing users’ emotional experiences [14]. Perrino‘s model, designed for temporal harmony, revealed the potential impact of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors on users’ current positive experiences within the positive experience cycle, inspiring designers to improve positive experiences by changing users’ cognitive memory and plans [15]. So far, the design models related to positive experiences are mainly focused on users’ perceptions. They are committed to providing positive experiences for individuals or groups through product interaction to influence their mood, behavior, attitude, and cognition and improve subjective well-being.

2.2. Impact-Centered Design

As early as the 1990s, American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner noted that there is a two-way, dynamic interaction between individuals and their living environments. Furthermore, recent studies have demonstrated that environmental problems and social and economic changes affect the health and well-being of individuals [16]. Researchers have investigated the relationship between users and their external environments to achieve sustainable well-being. For instance, Norman proposed the concept of humanity-centered design, which focuses on the long-term impact between societies and ecosystems [17]. More-than-human-centered design focuses on the interdependence of people and biological systems and seeks design methods that harmonize positive human experiences with the environment’s needs [18]. Sustainable design emphasizes integrating social, environmental, and economic impacts in designing products, systems, or services, balancing people’s needs with environmental and ethical concerns [19]. Therefore, Fokkinga believed that designers need to consider creating positive impacts on individual and social well-being in addition to users’ goals, feelings, abilities, and practices, and defined this coherent design intention as an “impact-centered design” [20].

The Oxford Dictionary defines “impact” as the powerful effect that something has on somebody or something. To illustrate the link between technical characteristics and happiness factors, Calvo divided the key factors affecting happiness into ego, sociability, and detachment [21]. For the design methodology, Cloutier considered that personal well-being is related to environmental conditions and social connections and proposed the Sustainability Through Happiness Framework, which is based on the vision of future happiness for sustainable design [22]. Weijs-Perrée found that transient experiences depended on the environment’s objective features and the individual’s subjective characteristics, and the short-lived experience ultimately influenced the individual’s sense of well-being through long-term experience [23]. In the impact-centered design process, designers need to comprehensively consider the interaction between users, society, and the environment and take the positive impact as the design goal. The impact can be further divided into two dimensions: (1) short-term impacts: changing users’ behaviors, attitudes, emotions, etc., through a short experience; (2) long-term impacts: making long-term impacts on users or stakeholders through sustainable experiences, with the combined effect gradually changing their qualities of life and social well-being. Shaping prolonged positive impacts can provide users with a more sustainable sense of well-being, and long-term impacts should be the main design goal during the impact-centered design process.

Table 2. The related literature of design impact.

Authors	Contributions	Source
Norman, D.A. (2023)	Humanity-centered design: Long-term impacts between people, societies, and ecosystems should be viewed from a long-term and systematic perspective.	[17]
Poikolainen Rosén, A. et al. (2022)	More-than-human-centered design: People and organisms systematically interact to achieve ecological sustainability.	[18]
Kristensen, H. S. et al. (2022)	Sustainable value propositions in product-service systems: Social, environmental, and economic impacts need to be integrated into the design process of products, systems, or services.	[19]
Fokkinga, S. F. et al. (2020)	An impact-centered design framework was established, including the direct and indirect psychological, social, and behavioral effects resulting from the interaction of people and products.	[20]
Calvo, R. A. et al. (2018)	Divide the main factors in technology that influence happiness into three categories: personal experience, social relationships, and altruism.	[21]
Cloutier, S. et al. (2017)	Environmental conditions and social connections influence individuals’ feelings of well-being. Therefore, an approach to system design based on a vision of the future was proposed.	[22]
Weijs-perrée, M. et al. (2019)	Transient experiences are influenced by the objective characteristics of the environment and the subjective characteristics of the individuals, ultimately affecting people’s happiness through long-term impacts.	[23]

presents some research details on impact-centered design.

Impact-centered design is a design concept that focuses on the long-term impact of design, with sustainable and broader well-being as the design goal. Positive experience design is driven by the pursuit of prolonged personal and social well-being. Therefore, the shift from user-centered to impact-centered approaches is the current trend in positive experience design. Although the concept of impact-centered design has been proposed, no scholar has developed relevant design models and methods for its execution. In addition, as positive experience design focuses on improving the well-being of users and society, less attention has been paid to environmental impact in research.

3. Construction of Design Model

3.1. Construction Process

The Wheel of Life is a visualization tool for real-time self-assessment and adjustment of lifestyles that focuses on the movements and changes of various important factors in life at different times. Thus, it helps users balance their careers and personal lives [24]. The balanced wheel can be used to clarify future directions and goals. In impact-centered design, combined with the balanced wheel tool, the different influence dimensions are considered important factors, which can present the ratio and variation relationships of the various impact objectives.

Xin divides the design objects of experience design into three parts: expectation, event, and impact. The three parts are interactional and inseparable. Expectations guide events, and the participants influence the development of events [25]. The Wheel of Life’s purpose is to maintain a dynamic balance, and the balance relationship needs to be evaluated from a long-term perspective. When certain factors in the Wheel of Balance change significantly, designers need to make appropriate adjustments to stabilize the balance. Therefore, in the above-balanced wheel model, the lines of “Current Value”, “Ideal Value”, and “Impact Value” are set, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. “Current Value” shows the user’s current life status, and “Ideal Value” represents the user’s expectations for an ideal life. The difference between the two reflects the degree of design involvement. In the design iteration process, the “Impact Value” line can be drawn several times in the model for designers to observe the change states of each dimension and the impact relationships, and the design can be adjusted by reference to the impact relationship.

Desmet proposed a framework for positive experience design that includes three parts: design for pleasure, design for personal significance, and design for virtue. Design for pleasure focuses on the present pleasure feeling, design for personal significance is mainly to encourage users to achieve long-term goals, and design for virtue is a morally meaningful experience that supports altruistic behaviors and thoughts [26]. Social ecologist researchers consider that human development involves the interaction between people and the environment and further divides the environment into physical and social environments [27].

Based on the research in the above two fields, the impact target can be deconstructed and reconstructed from the social-ecological system level (individual, society, and environment) and experience level (sensory experience and meaningful experience). The impact target can be divided into six dimensions: pleasure index, health behavior, social connectivity, social contribution, living environment, and environmental contribution, and there is a dynamic relationship between the six dimensions. As shown in Figure 2, the six influence dimensions were substituted into the balance wheel model to generate an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model.

3.2. Definition of Elements

3.2.1. Pleasure Index

Pleasure is a state of feeling happy and satisfied, including satisfying the user’s sensory stimuli and the sense of happiness brought to the user by meeting actual needs and achieving deep goal pursuits. Jordan compartmentalized pleasure into four categories: physical pleasure derived from sensory stimulation, social pleasure derived from social relationships and interactions, psychological pleasure derived from cognitive responses and related to the psychological needs of product use, and the pleasure of thought that comes from pursuing values and enjoying them [28]. Blythe defined pleasure as both sensory stimulation and self-realization pleasure and found that the process of satisfying needs can provide users with sustained pleasure [29]. Park discovered that hedonic pleasure could bring immediate happiness and satisfaction in experience, while self-expression and self-realization can give individuals greater meaning and satisfaction [30]. Therefore, the pleasure index can be obtained through the present pleasure experience, and the realization of meaning pursuit; that is, pleasure is directly affected on the sensory level and indirectly affected by the goal fulfillment.

3.2.2. Health Behavior

Health behaviors are the activities that people engage in to maintain physical and mental health. The scope of current research on behavior change techniques covers direct interventions on the physical and psychological level, as well as indirect interventions on social and environmental conditions; this means that designers are required to take measures to change the user’s current physical and mental state or create certain external environmental support. George divided interventions in the field of behavioral science into targeted measures for specific populations and interventions at the social, environmental, and policy levels [31]. Michie’s Behavior Change Wheel model suggests that designers can conduct comprehensive interventions from the aspects of ability, opportunity, and motivation to promote individual behavior change [32]. Nielsen extended the model and proposed six design directions for changing user behavior: cognition, ability, motivation, timing, social context, and physical context [33].

3.2.3. Social Connectivity

A social group is a group composed of individuals with certain social relationships or other associations. Individuals in social groups need to assume corresponding roles in the community and maintain social connectivity through participation in interactive communication. Maintaining certain social connectivity can provide users with positive physical states and mental feelings. Longa’s research found that the impact of interpersonal emotional contact can promote a sense of coexistence and social connectivity between individuals and help them overcome the sense of loneliness at the sensory level [34]. Seabrook identified positive social media interactions, social support, and feelings of social connectivity as impact factors for mental health and life satisfaction [35]. The degree of social connectivity can be improved by participating in various social activities or maintaining social communication and interaction, which can serve as a predictor of physical and psychological health and a motivator for users to actively participate in activities.

3.2.4. Social Contribution

Social contribution is an altruistic activity that people take part in to enhance the well-being of others or promote social progress. Engaging in social contribution activities brings a brief pleasure experience and, more importantly, satisfaction for self-identification and realization of personal significance [26]. Wu’s research revealed that volunteering can improve life satisfaction and mental health, while motivation for participation is affected by the social environment and physical status [36]. Cady classified the motivations for participating in social contributions into three types: self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and perceived support. Therefore, designers can enhance users’ willingness to participate in social contributions by changing their intrinsic motivations or external environments [37]. For example, a community governance pattern (community garden) encourages users to engage actively in community construction and contribute to the community’s sustainable development through co-construction and sharing.

3.2.5. Living Environment

The living environment where users live is where they are exposed to their daily activities, which directly influences their physical health and indirectly changes their behavior and psychological feelings, ultimately affecting their long-term well-being.

Social-ecological research has identified different environmental characteristics as “stress generators”, meaning that better environments can positively impact mental health and personal performance. Shabalin believed that when designing and adjusting the living environment, the user’s physical health, needs, and psychological factors should be considered [38]. Veen proved that promoting residents’ physical health, social cohesion, and psychological well-being are important evaluation indicators of urban greenfield planning [39]. The environment provides people with positive values such as comfort, social connectivity, and neighborhood satisfaction, affecting overall life satisfaction and happiness [40]. Therefore, the quality of living environments can be regarded as one of the indicators when evaluating individual and social well-being.

3.2.6. Environmental Contribution

Environmental contributions are altruistic, socially, and environmentally sustainable acts. Lee discovered that people’s environmental concerns have a dual meaning. On the one hand, consumers are genuinely concerned about environmental degradation; on the other, they want to be seen as environmentally responsible and, thus, create a better image for themselves [41]. Song identified such impure altruism as the result of the duality of altruism and egoism [42]. Chen demonstrated that self-identification for environmental contribution is conducive to forming self-norms and that such an identity is influenced by social reputation and peer behavior [43]. Individual environmental contribution behavior is an activity of meaningful and virtuous value influenced by subjective and indirect social norms. Although altruism has different purposes, it is typically a contribution to the sustainable development of the environment.

The definitions and relationships of all elements are summarized in

Table 3. Impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model elements.

Dimensions of Impact	Explanation	Relationships
Pleasure index	Evaluation of the state of self-happiness and self-satisfaction.
Health behavior	Activities to maintain physical and mental health.
Social connectivity	The interaction between members of a group.
Social contribution	Altruistic activities at the social level.
Living environment	Places of daily activities.
Environmental contribution	Altruistic behavior that is socially and environmentally sustainable.

.

3.3. Design Algorithm

3.3.1. Concept Generation Algorithm

In the above design model, designers can synthesize the “Current Value”, “Ideal Value”, and positive story to analyze the user’s values and futuristic visions, which can serve as a reference for determining the design direction. The final output concept combines design attributes related to six impact dimensions and other design attributes. Each concept has an unlimited number of attributes related to each impact dimension. Therefore, Equation (1) can explain the concept generation for impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design.

$${\mathrm{U}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\sum _{FP=0}^{{\mathrm{n}}_1}FP+\sum _{FH=0}^{{\mathrm{n}}_2}FH+\sum _{FS=0}^{{\mathrm{n}}_3}FS+\sum _{FC=0}^{{\mathrm{n}}_4}FC+\sum _{FE=0}^{{\mathrm{n}}_5}FE+\sum _{FG=0}^{{\mathrm{n}}_6}FG+{\mathsf{\mu }}_{\mathrm{t}}$$

(1)

In this equation, Ui is the design concept, FP represents pleasure index-related design attributes, FH represents health behavior-related design attributes, FS represents social connectivity-related design attributes, FC represents social contribution-related design attributes, FE represents living environment-related design attributes, FG represents environmental contribution-related design attributes, and μ_t represents other design attributes.

3.3.2. Concept Evaluation Algorithm

As the above model and concept generation equation have noted, each design attribute has a certain weight according to the user values for evaluating the design concept. Thus, based on the values of the target user, a two-hierarchy evaluation system of goal and criterion layers (six impact dimensions) can be constructed, and the weight value of the six evaluation indicators can be provided from the perspective of the selected user group. According to the analytical hierarchy process, the goal layer is first recorded as set A; that is, A stands for the user’s ideal living state. The criterion layer is listed as C = (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6). Here, C represents the evaluation criterion of the user’s ideal life state, of which C1 is the pleasure index, C2 is the health behavior, C3 is the social connectivity, C4 is the social contribution, C5 is the living environment, and C6 is the environmental contribution. The user is invited to score each criterion from 1 to 7 and mark it as the “Impact Value” (curved line in the above model), accordingly building the corresponding indicator judgment matrix:

$$\mathit{A}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}{a}_{11},& a_{12},& a_{13},& a_{14},& a_{15},& a_{16},\\ a_{21},& a_{22},& a_{23},& a_{24},& a_{25},& a_{26},\\ a_{31},& a_{32},& a_{33},& a_{34},& a_{35},& a_{36},\\ a_{41},& a_{42},& a_{43},& a_{44},& a_{45},& a_{46},\\ a_{51},& a_{52},& a_{53},& a_{54},& a_{55},& a_{56},\\ a_{61},& a_{62},& a_{63},& a_{64},& a_{65},& a_{66}\end{array}\right]$$

(2)

In the above matrix, a_ij represents the ratio between the user’s rating (a_i) for rule i and the rating (a_j) for rule j, as shown in Equation (3):

$$a_{ij}=\frac{a_i}{a_j}$$

(3)

Secondly, to solve the weight of the indicators, the geometric average method is used to make a single hierarchical arrangement:

1.

Calculate the sixth root of the accumulation of each row in the judgment matrix and make a six-dimensional vector ${\overline{\omega }}_i$:

$${\overline{\omega }}_i=\sqrt[6]{\prod _{j=1}^6{a}_{ij}}$$

(4)

2.

Then, normalize the vector and convert it to several weight values:

$${\omega }_i=\frac{{\overline{\omega }}_i}{{\sum }_{j=1}^6{\overline{\omega }}_j}$$

(5)

Finally, match the weight of each indicator with the corresponding design attribute, and the concept evaluation equation is deduced:

$$F_i={\omega }_1\sum _{FP=0}^{n_1}FP+{\omega }_2\sum _{FH=0}^{n_2}FH+{\omega }_3\sum _{FS=0}^{n_3}FS+{\omega }_4\sum _{FC=0}^{n_4}FC+{\omega }_5\sum _{FE=0}^{n_5}FE+{\omega }_6\sum _{FG=0}^{n_6}FG+{\mu }_t$$

(6)

The practical design practice is a process of multiple scheme iterations, and the above formula can be used repeatedly for evaluation and redesign. In the later period, the score of each index remains relatively equal and stable.

4. Design Workshop

To verify the feasibility of the model, an eight-week design practice was organized in the form of a workshop. The model’s usability and ease of use were evaluated based on the design output and the designers’ feedback.

4.1. Participants

Fifty-two students majoring in product design were recruited from a university in Shanghai and divided into 13 groups. These participants were recruited from a design course, and they volunteered to attend this workshop. Before the study, they understood the background of positive experience design and the general design process.

4.2. Materials

This study required designers to use this model to assist with design throughout the workshop. At first, the design model proposed in this study was introduced by the researchers. As shown in Figure 3, an integration framework of an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model was provided for participants to record the design process. The framework comprises five parts: dilemma conflicts, positive stories, concept visualizations, experience evaluations, and the impact-centered design model. With the theme “Intelligent Home-based Sustainable Care for the Elderly”, participants used the tool to generate concepts and evaluate results.

To further verify the feasibility of the model, the researchers invited participants to evaluate the model through a questionnaire survey after the workshop. The questions were derived from the technology acceptance model (TAM) proposed by Davis. The TAM is a tool used to measure user acceptance of a certain technology, in which perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PE) are the two main factors determining technology acceptance. The TAM questionnaire adopts a seven-level scale, with the options from “−3” to “+3”, representing “strongly disagree” to” strongly agree”.

4.3. Procedure

This design workshop consists of four phases: defining the dilemma conflicts and positive story, generating the design concepts, evaluating the experience, and visualizing the design results.

Figure 4 shows some photos of the workshop.

Phase 1: First, the 13 groups discussed the design theme. Through an in-depth interview with a typical user, they acquired the user’s core values, thereby identifying the main conceptual direction related to intelligent home-based products for older people. Second, referring to the design model, the groups invited their interviewees to perform a six-dimensional rating of their current and ideal living conditions. The polylines of “Current Value” and “Ideal Value” were drawn, respectively, on the model. Finally, group members generated personas and positive stories based on the survey and analysis.

Phase 2: Each group conducted a design analysis based on positive stories and model diagrams, choosing a dimension that has the most significant impact on the user’s life (the largest ideal value) from the six design dimensions as the basic direction to develop the concept. Each participant in each group generated a concept around this group’s topic selection and related impact dimensions.

Phase 3: Concepts were evaluated between the groups. Firstly, the members of the two groups were assigned the identities of “designers” and “judges”, respectively. Members of the “designers” group described their design concepts to members of the “judges” group in turn, and each member of the “judges” group scored each design concept from 1 to 7 based on six dimensions. Then, the two groups switched roles and repeated the process above. By averaging the results, the scores of each concept in six dimensions were calculated, and the optimal concept in each dimension stood out by comparison. Finally, the optimal concept of each dimension was deconstructed and integrated into a final concept.

Phase 4: Under guidance, participants integrated and elaborated on the final design concept. Then, they visualized the design scheme through three-dimensional software (Rhino 7, Cinema 4D) modeling and model-making.

4.4. Results

4.4.1. Design Result

In this workshop, each group focused on the theme of “Intelligent Home-based Sustainable Care for Older People”, carried out design practices based on the most significant impact target expected by target users, and modified and improved design schemes by comprehensively considering other impact dimensions in the process. Finally, the 13 groups of impact-centered design schemes were generated.

Part of the design schemes are shown in Figure 5.

All groups completed the design practice well with the model. Taking the design scheme of the “Meta-universe Family Tree” as an example, the process of guiding participants to complete the product design through the impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model is illustrated in Figure 6.

Phase 1 (Definition of dilemma conflicts and positive story): The group participants interviewed the target user (Grandma Wang, who values tradition) and recorded her daily activities and common objects. Within the survey, some important information and a core value of the user were extracted, and the “Current Value” line of the user’s current life state in six impact dimensions and the “Ideal Value” line of the user’s ideal life state in six impact dimensions were drawn on the model.

Phase 2 (Concept generation): According to the concept generation algorithm in Section 3.3.1, each designer considered a concept by referring to the positive story and the drawn model. Impact goals, such as “pleasure index” and “social connectivity”, were considered to improve Grandma Wang’s happiness in life. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the impact on the user’s behavior and the living environment.

Phase 3 (Concept visualization): After concept mutual evaluation, the group integrated all of the concepts into the “Meta-universe Family Tree”, which combined physical products with the online meta-universe space to provide a new way for the young and old to connect and interact, aiming to enhance the pleasure and well-being of older people.

Phase 4 (Experience evaluation): Designers used the impact-centered sustainable positive experience design model to design a meta-universe family tree for traditional older people who value their families. Through the conceptual reconstruction of an old idiom, “Though a tree grows ever so high, the falling leaves return to the ground”, and the interactive innovation of the visual meta-universe family tree, “social connectivity” was established for family members. Through a novel interactive mode of plug-in synchronization data and the concept innovation of digital homing pigeons delivering blessings, the “pleasure index” was increased. The design achieved the ideal impact goals after model-making and design evaluation by target users. Taking the impact relationship between the pleasure index and social connectivity as the starting point of the design, the pleasure index was improved by enhancing the contact between the user and her family. At the same time, the motivation of users to maintain social connectivity was enhanced.

As shown in Figure 7, phased outcomes were filled in an integration framework of an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model that guided subsequent redesigns.

In addition, the other 12 groups’ schemes were designed and achieved the expected impact goals by evaluation. Figure 8 shows one more design case, “Reading log light”, designed for conservative older people who are not good at socializing. First, the designers defined an older person who likes to read books but is not good at socializing as the target user. Second, the designers provided a positive story based on the model: the older man indirectly communicates his reading insights with others at the senior center. As a result, a public reading light was designed to record the reader’s thoughts. In this way, readers are free to exchange their thoughts with others. Finally, the designers made a prototype for their scheme. The prototype achieved the ideal impact after trial and evaluation by target users. The social contribution of knowledge sharing was realized through the writing screen’s message function. The social connectivity of communication and sharing was realized through the product positioning of community use scenarios.

As confirmed by the above study, participants could generate a series of differential design concepts according to the different impact dimensions in the model. Based on their understanding of the model, designers could apply it to complete relevant design practices.

4.4.2. Feedback

Questionnaires were given to participants after the workshop. Participants evaluated the model according to their feelings during the design practice and were asked 40 valid questionnaires.

The specific data analysis results are shown in

Table 4. Evaluation and analysis of the questionnaire.

Number	Scale Items	Average Value	Standard Deviation
	Perceived usefulness	1.792	1.160
PU 1	Using this model allows me to work more quickly	1.900	1.105
PU 2	Using this model can improve my job performance	1.700	1.203
PU 3	Using this model can increase my productivity	1.825	1.217
PU 4	Using this model can improve my effectiveness	1.875	1.114
PU 5	Using this model makes my job easier	1.650	1.231
PU 6	This model is useful in my work	1.800	1.091
	Perceived ease of use	1.863	1.082
PE 1	This model is easy to learn	1.850	1.051
PE 2	This model is controllable	1.775	0.947
PE 3	My interaction with this model is clear and understandable	2.100	1.128
PE 4	This model is flexible in interaction	1.650	1.231
PE 5	This model is easy to become skillful at	1.825	1.035
PE 6	This model is easy to use	1.975	1.097

PU = perceptive usefulness; PE = perception ease of use.

.

The average values of the two evaluation aspects of this design model, perceived usefulness (1.792) and perceived ease of use (1.863), were close to 2. Namely, participants expressed “agreement” in both evaluation aspects, indicating the model’s usefulness and ease of use. Among all the items, “My interaction with this model is clear and understandable” (PE3) scored 2.100, indicating that this model has a good visualization effect and a clear step description. However, the standard deviations of this model in the two evaluation aspects, perceived usefulness (1.160) and perceived ease of use (1.082), were both large, showing that participants have certain deviations in using the model and understanding some model elements. Notably, the standard deviations of “Using this model makes my job easier” (PE4) and “This model is flexible in interaction” (PU5) were 1.231. The researchers asked the participants for specific comments to explore the underlying reasons. The later analysis concluded that the model has the following limitations: First, designers need to have a certain understanding of the model before applying it to design. Second, the concepts of “social contribution” and “environmental contribution” may be ambiguous. Finally, under some design themes, the design dimension suitable for the design is rather rigid; thus, the model’s applicability is relatively low. Therefore, in-depth and visualized explanations of the model should be given in the future to avoid users’ difficulty in learning the model and prevent ambiguity. Furthermore, it is essential to explain the steps and elements of the model in detail, such as by providing some specific cases or images for each impact dimension to help users understand.

5. Discussion

This paper constructs an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model to guide designers to carry out impact-centered design practices. The research shows that the model is feasible in practice. Although there are some limitations in the interpretation and applicability of this model, the study’s overall results clearly show that the model helps inspire designers.

From a long-term and systematic perspective, current design decisions and behaviors may have potentially long-term impacts on society and ecosystems [17]. Under the influence of the sustainable trend, users’ demand for environmentally friendly products is growing. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the future impact of our activities to sustain the finite resources available to meet the needs of future generations [44]. Although the consideration of environmental and moral responsibility has been involved in some research on design methodology [45], there is no comprehensive design model. In addition, positive design is a concept that focuses on realizing long-term goals, which is consistent with the pursuit of SDGs at the social and environmental levels. Therefore, the model constructed is not only an extension of positive design research but, more importantly, provides a design tool for sustainable design that is mutually beneficial to people and the environment.

In the field of positive experience, this study included research on the dimensions of pleasure and meaning, like the other pieces of literature. However, the uniqueness of this study is as follows: At first, the design perspective was shifted from the relationship between products and users to the relationship between products, people, and the environment. As a result, the connection between people and the external environment is strengthened, and the scope of influence is expanded. Next, the meaning-driven design emphasizes enhancing user happiness through the meaningful connection between products and users [46]. In contrast, the impact-centered design pays more attention to sustaining happiness. Therefore, impact-centered design is not limited to the one-way influence between individuals and the external environment but pays more attention to the bidirectional impact mechanism between individuals and the environment and the sustainable, dynamic relationship of influence.

In terms of guiding practice, the constructed model provides designers with a systematic tool for conceptualizing and evaluating designs. Furthermore, the model is designed for sustainable positive experience and well-being, leading designers to promote user well-being on social and environmental levels; this will not only help broaden the design thinking of designers but also provide users with a more sustainable and significant sense of well-being. Moreover, from the sustainability perspective, the design practice guided by the impact-centered sustainable positive experience model includes considerations of future development and the ecological environment.

6. Conclusions

The contributions of this study are as follows: (1) it extends the design impact from the user level to social and environmental levels. On this basis, six impact-centered design dimensions are proposed; (2) an impact-centered sustainable positive experience design model is constructed, in which “Current Value”, “Ideal Value”, and “Impact Value” are set, respectively, to help designers carry out impact-centered design practices. In addition, an integration framework of an impact-centered, sustainable, positive experience design model is established, which provides convenience for designers to determine design directions and divergent and evaluate design concepts in the design process; and (3) fifty-two participants were invited to use the model for design practice and evaluation, which proved the feasibility and effectiveness of the model.

The research shows that impact-centered design is a design that pays more attention to the long-term and dynamic impacts and the interdependency of various elements in the design process. Regarding the long-term impact, the model takes the user’s future vision as the design objective and focuses more on the user’s long-term goals. Moreover, the design evaluation and iteration process also reflects the long-term impact. In terms of the interdependency of the impact elements, according to the social-ecological perspective, this paper holds that the impact elements have a mutual influence relationship. In other words, when the design of an impact dimension has a negative impact on another impact dimension, the negative reaction of the impact dimension on the design goal will cause a long-term negative cycle. Therefore, designers need to comprehensively consider the six impact dimensions in the design process. In addition, the balance relationships that need to be maintained in the impact-centered design are dynamic. Although the “Impact Value” set in the model was for considering the dynamic nature of the impact, the dynamic nature of the impact has not been studied in detail. Therefore, this paper envisions the following plans: (1) add a detailed explanation and description of the model and its elements in addition to the limitations of the study; (2) conduct future research on the relationship between the impact dimensions, and develop a dynamic tool to reflect the influence relationship; and (3) based on the dynamic impacts and the impact-centered sustainable positive experience design model, the corresponding design strategies will be developed for related design themes.