Next Article in Journal
Predicting the Influence of Ammonium Toxicity Levels in Water Using Fuzzy Logic and ANN Models
Previous Article in Journal
Balancing Social and Cultural Priorities in the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for UNESCO World Heritage Cities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/su16145834
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Transition Design as a Strategy for Post-Pandemic Spatial Experience Enhancement: A Sustainability Perspective

by
Yu Kong
1,*,
Chenglein Teng
2 and
Chiencheng Liu
1
1
Department of Design, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106209, Taiwan
2
Creative Product Design, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 5834; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145834 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 18 April 2024 / Revised: 5 June 2024 / Accepted: 28 June 2024 / Published: 9 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Innovations for Sustainable Development Goals Achievement)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly altered our perception of spatial experience, presenting new challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. This study adopts a transition design perspective to explore innovative strategies for enhancing spatial experiences in the post-pandemic era, underscoring the central role of sustainability in this process. By integrating expert interviews, stakeholder participation, and qualitative analysis, this research delves into the impacts of the pandemic on spatial design and identifies key challenges and opportunities. It proposes a series of innovative strategies, such as optimizing spatial layouts, incorporating smart technologies, augmenting with natural elements, and promoting modular design, aimed at creating safer, smarter, more comfortable, and sustainable spatial experiences. This study not only provides new insights into spatial experience design in the post-pandemic era but also underscores the potential of transition design in facilitating societal transformation and achieving sustainability goals, providing actionable insights and directions for future research.

1. Introduction

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to profound transformations across various social and individual domains, altering lifestyles, social interactions, and spatial utilization [1,2,3,4]. As control measures continue to influence our lives, there is growing recognition of the need to adapt our environments to these new realities [5]. Transition design, an emerging methodology aimed at addressing complex, wicked problems, offers a powerful framework for reimagining and redesigning spatial experiences in this new context [6].
Transition design advocates for a comprehensive change in societal systems through design-led solutions, closely aligning with sustainability principles [7]. It promotes a long-term, multi-disciplinary approach to design, suggesting that designers consider broader system-level impacts [8]. By adopting this perspective, this study aims to explore innovative strategies for enhancing post-pandemic spatial experiences, integrating the insights and tools of transition design to address and reshape the interactions between people and spaces.
Research to date has primarily focused on immediate responses to the challenges posed by the pandemic, such as social-distancing-friendly layouts and improved air circulation systems [9,10]. While there is growing attention to adaptability and sustainability in spatial design, there is a lack of holistic strategies that integrate long-term sustainability with active stakeholder participation [11]. This study seeks to bridge these gaps by employing a comprehensive approach that includes expert interviews, diverse stakeholder engagement, and qualitative analysis.
Central to our approach is the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly health and well-being (SDG 3) and building sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). Ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being at all ages (SDG 3) is critical in a post-pandemic world, while creating inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable urban areas (SDG 11) addresses the core of sustainable urban design [12]. The intersection of these goals highlights the interdisciplinary nature of our work and the need for an integrated approach to improve health, well-being, urban sustainability, and community development.
This article is organized into four main sections. Section 1 sets the theoretical foundation by examining the changing requirements for spatial experiences in the post-pandemic era and their relationship with human behavior. Section 2 describes our research framework, which adopts a transition design approach to identify sustainable spatial solutions. Section 3 introduces our research process and methods, focusing on analyzing initial problems, engaging stakeholders through workshops, and conceptualizing future scenarios to develop adaptive design strategies. Section 4 consolidates our findings, evaluates the implications of transition design on spatial configurations, and suggests directions for further research in sustainable spatial design. This structured approach allows for a comprehensive analysis and application of transition design principles in the context of sustainable development.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Spatial Experience Needs in the Post-Pandemic Era

Post-pandemic spatial experience encompasses the transformations in how people perceive, interact with, and emotionally respond to spaces following COVID-19. Recent studies highlight the pivotal role of spatial design themes in shaping these experiences during and after the pandemic. These themes include transportation accessibility, the integration of green and outdoor spaces, healthcare facilities optimization, and the reconfiguration of public spaces [2].

2.1.1. Transportation Accessibility Needs

The post-pandemic era has underscored an urgent, multifaceted need for enhanced transportation accessibility. Recent proposals suggest improving the safety and efficiency of public transportation systems through advanced scheduling technologies and contactless payment systems to minimize health risks [13]. Moreover, there is a growing emphasis on active transportation. Cities around the world have experienced a surge in cycling and pedestrian traffic, prompting urban planners to significantly expand bike lanes and pedestrian paths [14,15,16,17]. The adoption of smart transportation technologies has also been crucial in enhancing network efficiency and reducing urban congestion [18,19,20].

2.1.2. Needs for Green and Outdoor Spaces

The demand for green and outdoor spaces has markedly increased in the post-pandemic landscape [21]. People seek these spaces for their mental and physical well-being, evidenced by increased footfall in parks and natural reserves [22]. Access to nature not only supports relaxation and stress relief but also contributes positively to overall health outcomes [23,24]. The pandemic has also prompted a shift from indoor sports activities to outdoor recreational pursuits, leading to an increased demand for outdoor activity spaces [25].

2.1.3. Healthcare Facility Needs

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare space design has evolved rapidly to address new needs for safety and functionality. Key changes include enhancing isolation room capacities to manage airborne diseases, redesigning shared spaces such as staff break rooms to minimize contact, and revamping entry and triage procedures with tele-triage systems and multiple entry points to prevent cross-infection [26]. Additionally, the integration of telemedicine has reduced the need for physical space in healthcare settings, shifting the focus towards more versatile and technologically equipped facilities [27,28,29,30]. Moreover, modular and prefabricated construction methods are becoming more prevalent, enabling swift adaptation to emergency needs [31]. There is an increasing emphasis on designing spaces that meet the growing needs for psychological and behavioral health services, reflecting a broader shift towards more adaptive, patient-centered healthcare environments [32]. Concurrently, planning public transportation routes and schedules based on hospital service times can significantly enhance the accessibility of healthcare services for elderly populations and other vulnerable groups [33]. This integration directly impacts the convenience of obtaining timely medical services, demonstrating how urban planning and healthcare provision are interlinked to improve overall patient care.

2.1.4. Public Space Needs

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a significant re-evaluation of urban space usage, leading to temporary street closures and space reallocations for outdoor activities and dining [34]. This shift, well received by the public, reflects a broader demand for more accessible and functional public areas conducive to social distancing and healthy living [35]. Survey data from New Jersey suggest strong support for these changes to become permanent, with 40–45% of respondents favoring the enhanced pedestrian zones and vibrant town centers [34]. The post-pandemic era has prompted design teams to revisit the definitions of public spaces such as parks, sports venues, and community centers [36]. The outbreak of the pandemic has led to a new understanding of social contact and has profoundly changed the way people use public spaces [35]. People place greater emphasis on the safety and sanitary conditions of public spaces [37]. Generally, people hope to experience cleanliness, hygiene, and safety in public places.
In the post-pandemic era, cities must possess a high degree of adaptability and resilience to cope with ever-changing situations and provide a safe and reliable living environment for the public [38,39]. This implies that the focus of public space design should be on reducing contact, providing buffer spaces, and enabling multi-purpose applications. However, existing architectural structures are largely fixed and functionally singular, necessitating more flexible design planning to address emergencies. Through innovative design concepts and technological means, a more adaptable and resilient public space can be created to meet people’s ever-changing needs and expectations.

2.2. Transition Design

Design has consistently evolved to meet the changing needs of society [40]. The evolution of design began with giving form to things, solving problems of new technological forms, and then shifted towards defining issues of new product development, marking a transition in design thinking from a singular product focus to research and practice applied to societal issues and management [41]. Simultaneously, the socio-technical systems supporting society and meeting its needs require fundamental and transformative reconfiguration [42]. In response to the demand for comprehensive transformation, the emergence of “sustainability transitions” has appeared in emerging fields of research and practice [43]. In this process, the field of sustainable design has shifted its focus towards the development of sustainability transitions, thereby sparking interest in “design for sustainability transitions” or simply “transition design” [44].
Transition design emerges as a potent research method that advocates for profound societal change through the design of products, systems, and services that align with sustainable futures [6]. This framework integrates four interconnected dimensions: vision, theories of change, mindset/posture, and new ways of designing, each playing a critical role in orienting design practices toward long-term systemic transformation (Figure 1).

2.2.1. Transition Design Framework

The diagram presented outlines the “Transition Design Framework”, which integrates coevolving areas of knowledge, action, and self-reflection to guide the progression toward a sustainable society. Central to the framework are four interconnected components.
Transition design posits that crafting compelling, future-oriented visions can catalyze change by presenting plausible and desirable scenarios that diverge from current unsustainable trajectories [45]. This aspect of transition design involves utilizing speculative design to foster narratives that challenge existing conditions and propose alternative ways of living [46].
At the core of transition design is the principle that all design interventions imply a theory of change. Theories of change encourage researchers to formulate hypotheses about the nature of change induced by design decisions and to reflect critically on the assumptions underlying these hypotheses [47]. Transition design argues for a nonlinear understanding of change, recognizing that it occurs within complex, adaptive systems, often in unpredictable ways [48].
Transition design requires researchers to engage in continuous self-reflection and to cultivate mindsets and postures that support collaborative and transformational practices. This dimension emphasizes the need for designers to be aware of their own worldviews and biases as these influence the framing of problems and the generation of solutions [48].
Finally, transition design promotes a methodological approach that is iterative, collaborative, and transdisciplinary. It advocates designing with an awareness of the temporal aspects of solutions—considering both their immediate impact and their long-term sustainability [49]. This involves a willingness to reframe problems and solutions dynamically as part of an ongoing, evolutionary process.
This holistic framework posits that the synergy between expanded knowledge, innovative design practices, and dynamic theories of change is critical for fostering a sustainable future, urging a continual reassessment and adaptation of strategies as societal needs evolve.

2.2.2. Features of Transition Design

In academic discourse, transition design is increasingly regarded by scholars as an emergent paradigm in design philosophy. This approach emphasizes holistic and long-term perspectives for problem-solving, underscores the importance of collaborative engagement among diverse stakeholders, and positions sustainable development as its fundamental objective [6,50]. Although a unified definition of transition design has not yet been established, a synthesis of existing research allows for the identification of several distinct characteristics:
  • Systemic orientation: transition design is fundamentally grounded in systems thinking, situating social issues within a broader systemic context to examine interconnections among various elements. It advocates for addressing challenges through co-ordinated efforts to fundamentally transform systems at their core [42,50].
  • Value-driven: transition design is not a neutral technical activity but is driven by value-oriented principles. It aims for fundamental objectives such as sustainability and social equity, striving to reshape individuals’ worldviews, values, and lifestyles through design [6,51].
  • Participatory: transition design emphasizes the participation of diverse actors. It fosters an open, collaborative, and co-creative approach, encouraging various stakeholders to actively engage in the transformation process to collectively shape a desired future [6,8,52].
  • Foresightful: transition design is distinctly future-oriented, focusing on articulating ideal visions, engaging in forward-thinking, and designing to guide current actions towards long-term goals [7].
Transition design is not only a new methodology in design but also an interdisciplinary research approach. During the transition design process, stakeholders utilize this methodology to understand and define problems from systemic, long-term, and sustainability perspectives. This involves considering stakeholder conflicts and co-operation, collectively creating visions, and designing intervention measures. The advantages of transition design lie in its emphasis on integrative thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, practice orientation, and forward-looking approach. This enables researchers to delve deeply into social phenomena, understand the fundamental causes and potential impacts of problems, and identify feasible and sustainable solutions.

3. Research Framework

Based on the literature review of “post-pandemic spatial experiences” and “transition design”, this study identified an urgent need to explore spatial experience design from a novel perspective to address the transformations in the post-pandemic era. Consequently, this research adopts a transition design approach for design research, focusing on the iterative four-stage process illustrated in Figure 1.
The research framework is grounded in the “transition design mindset”, encompassing four expert workshops aimed at investigating spatial experience design in response to the post-pandemic future period. This study is divided into three stages: the first stage involves preliminary research and analysis, the second stage encompasses transition design, and the third stage involves design intervention measures. The specific processes and methods are depicted in Figure 2.
The implementation of this research primarily comprises four design expert workshops. Each workshop consists of one workshop facilitator, three spatial design experts, and one research assistant. To facilitate the participation of members from different regions, online workshops are conducted using Teams and the collaborative whiteboard tool Miro for team discussions and data collection.

4. Research Process and Methods

Based on the research question of exploring new spatial experience design strategies in the post-pandemic era, this study adopted a multi-stage systematic approach. The research process included three main stages, aiming to systematically address the spatial experience challenges brought by the pandemic through problem analysis, stakeholder engagement, transition design concepts, and solution formulation. The initial phase of the analysis examines the impact of COVID-19 on spatial experiences and design. Subsequently, the second stage engaged stakeholders through workshop activities to elicit their concerns and expectations regarding spatial experiences during the pandemic, thereby facilitating the development of a shared mindset. The third stage centered on discussing interventions, which included envisioning future living, project planning, and articulating principles and strategies for designing spatial experiences.

4.1. Phase 1: Preliminary Research and Analysis

4.1.1. Problem Identification

This stage employs a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environmental (PESTE) framework to assess the impacts of COVID-19 on spatial experience and design. The Political, Economic, Social, and Technological (PEST) analysis is a widely utilized tool that supports strategic management and decision-making processes [53]. Additionally, multiple adaptations of PEST analysis, such as PESTEL, SLEPT, and DESTEP, exist [54]. In alignment with the sustainability principles of transition design, this study incorporates the environmental dimension into the PEST framework, thereby establishing a Policy, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environmental (PESTE) analysis framework [55]. PESTE analysis helps in understanding how these five broad categories of external factors influence and shape spatial design requirements and possibilities [56].
The research assistant was responsible for conducting a multi-faceted PESTE search online and proposing two questions: (1) What impacts might “spatial design and experience” have in the PEST aspects before and during the pandemic? (2) In the PESTE aspects, what are the responses of “spatial design and experience” to the “pandemic or post-pandemic new normal”? Focusing on these two questions, a search for relevant information on the Internet was conducted.

4.1.2. Correlation Analysis

The research team categorized and analyzed the collected data into the PESTE aspects, integrating them into a PESTE problem cognitive reasoning map. The problem mapping process involved identifying the interrelationships between problem factors. After the PESTE classification analysis, five types of relationships between factors were further identified: (1) interdependence, (2) causality, (3) conflict, (4) affinity, and (5) feedback loop (see Appendix B, Figure A1).

4.1.3. Results Analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought numerous challenges to spatial experience design. Politically, the pandemic led governments to implement social distancing and remote working policies, forcing a re-evaluation of public and office space planning. Economically, online shopping, remote working, and health safety facilities brought new economic expenditures, and supply chain vulnerabilities necessitated redesigning distribution spaces. Socially, the pandemic changed people’s social interaction patterns and religious activity modes and highlighted existing inequalities. Technologically, contactless technologies, virtual reality, and the Internet of Things became necessities for application and integration. Environmentally, the pandemic promoted environmental awareness and raised standards for hygiene in the new normal. Overall, the pandemic emphasized the importance of safety, flexibility, comfort, and environmental sustainability in spatial experience design. Table 1 summarizes the key impacts across the political, economic, social, technological, and environmental dimensions, providing a quick reference for understanding the complex influences of COVID-19 on spatial experience design.
The political, economic, social, technological, and environmental aspects are interrelated, exerting a combined influence on spatial experience design. Policy measures such as social distancing and remote working impacted economic activities, promoting the development of online shopping and remote collaboration, posing new demands for retail and office space design. Simultaneously, these policies changed people’s social patterns, and design needs to balance social distancing and social cohesion. Technological applications like contactless interaction and virtual reality helped meet new social and economic needs. Economic transformation also impacted the social aspect, with the pandemic highlighting societal inequalities, and design should consider how to foster an inclusive and equitable environment through spatial planning. While pursuing economic development, the importance of environmental protection has become increasingly prominent, calling for sustainable development measures. Technological innovation can help address political, economic, and social challenges but also brings new environmental issues, such as increased energy consumption. Therefore, design needs to balance technological application and environmental impact. Environmental issues, like heightened hygiene standards in the new normal, impose stricter requirements on spatial design materials and cleaning capabilities, influencing policy formulation and leading to more stringent environmental regulations. In summary, these five aspects influence and constrain each other, and spatial experience design needs to comprehensively consider the demands of each aspect, creating an inclusive, healthy, and eco-friendly quality spatial experience based on safety, flexibility, and sustainability.

4.2. Phase 2: Transition Design

4.2.1. Stakeholder Study

Transition design identifies stakeholders as any group members adversely affected by pertinent issues [57]. This paper posits that, given the pandemic’s widespread impact on spatial experiences, every individual in modern society should be considered a relevant stakeholder. Consequently, it is prudent to engage space design experts with a commitment to sustainability for post-pandemic transition design to enhance spatial experiences.
Therefore, this article found three space design experts recruited from the Internet through the author’s social media channels to conduct user interviews. The three participants were selected based on three criteria: (1) years of experience in space design; (2) professional knowledge of space design; and (3) understanding of sustainable space concepts. The selected respondents happened to exhibit varying degrees on these three criteria, thus maximizing the reflection of different stakeholder profiles (see Table 2). The interviews were conducted through the online meeting platform Teams and were based on a set of semi-structured questions and lasted 30 min (see Appendix A, Table A1). This approach allowed for in-depth discussions while providing enough flexibility for experts to express unique insights and ideas.
In conducting semi-structured interviews with three stakeholders, each possessing extensive experience in design and education, we explored their perspectives on the evolution of spatial design, particularly in the context of the post-pandemic era. Stakeholder A, with a background in interior and architectural design, emphasized the pandemic’s revelation of the need for adaptable and multifunctional spaces. Stakeholder B, an industrial design and applied arts expert, highlighted the enhanced importance of health-oriented, versatile spaces responsive to public health shifts. Stakeholder C, having studied interior design at university before obtaining a master’s in industrial education and a Ph. D in industrial design, now a professor in the Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, stressed adaptability and healthy design principles.
In a discourse on sustainable spatial design, stakeholders identified significant challenges and opportunities. They noted the integration difficulties of renewable energy and advanced technologies while emphasizing the need to balance health, environmental sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. Successful implementations of smart technologies, such as IoT and automated systems, have enhanced sustainability and user experience. Recommendations for optimizing spatial layouts included adopting modular and biophilic designs, alongside dynamic planning tools, to promote safety, adaptability, and sustainability. Looking ahead, stakeholders anticipate a future in which spatial design is intricately woven with technology and sustainability principles, dynamically catering to user needs while promoting ecological and social resilience. These insights highlight a shift toward more robust and sustainable design practices, reflecting a broad spectrum of expert experiences and aligning with current trends in design thinking.

4.2.2. Problem Listing

In the second stage’s workshop activities, the facilitator first introduced the definitions of transition design and spatial experience, as well as the main members and approach of the workshop. With “spatial experience during the pandemic” as the topic, discussions revolved around themes such as transportation accessibility, green spaces and outdoor areas, medical spaces, and public spaces. Team members engaged in brainstorming and discussions, with the outcomes documented within the Miro workspace. This study has compiled the data from Miro into Appendix A, Table A2 and Table A3, for detailed reference. The stakeholders jointly identified their fears or concerns about potential problems, as well as their hopes or desires. This stage’s discussion emphasized exploring what needs to change and how to change it, laying the foundation for innovative solutions.
During the pandemic, stakeholders have expressed substantial concerns about spatial experiences, largely centered around contagion risks and the functionality of spaces under pandemic conditions. Many stakeholders report a heightened fear of interpersonal interactions and crowded settings, exacerbated by previous negative experiences. This fear has led to discomfort in maintaining personal space in both public and private areas, causing increased stress and altered usage patterns. Consequently, there is a growing demand for spatial functionalities that are adaptable to rapid changes. Economic impacts are also significant, with decreased activity in business centers and heightened preferences for isolated living arrangements, like studio apartments, due to concerns about hygiene and safety standards. Further anxieties include the quality of indoor air and construction materials, perceived risks of virus transmission, and the challenges of maintaining social distancing in public spaces. These issues underline the critical need for flexible design solutions in commercial architecture to accommodate the shift toward online platforms and changing user behaviors.
Conversely, the aspirations articulated by stakeholders outline a proactive and forward-looking blueprint for future space design. There is a strong desire for public spaces to evolve towards more open and flexible designs that can accommodate social distancing requirements while fostering a sense of community and accessibility. Stakeholders advocate for a reduction in the prevailing fear associated with interpersonal interactions and crowded places, suggesting a shift towards a more relaxed and confident societal demeanor post-pandemic. They emphasize the necessity of integrating advanced internet technologies into everyday life to facilitate interpersonal communication and enhance remote interactions, making these experiences smoother and more intuitive. In terms of urban planning, there is a call for a transition from segregated to mixed-use developments, which would foster more dynamic and integrated urban environments. Moreover, the potential for virtual spaces is seen as an area ripe for development, promising to enrich real-world interactions through sophisticated virtual–real integrations. In healthcare, the reconfiguration of medical spaces is envisioned to improve user experiences and functionality, reflecting a broader intention to construct environments that are both logical and conducive to better health outcomes. Finally, stakeholders express a keen interest in the sustainability of temporary structures such as monitoring stations and temporary hospitals, advocating for their repurposing to optimize space usage in a post-pandemic reality, thereby enhancing the overall integrity and utility of medical and public spaces.

4.2.3. Cognitive Shift

To achieve innovation in spatial experience design, the stakeholder team explicitly expressed a new mindset toward spatial experiences, transcending old ways of thinking. A detailed schema, “New Mindset Towards Spatial Experiences”, categorizes this shift into three primary areas: “What Can You Change?”, “Beliefs & Assumptions Now”, and “Beliefs & Assumptions 2050” (see Appendix A, Table A4). This structure not only outlines actionable changes but also encapsulates the evolution of societal expectations and technological advancements impacting spatial design.
Immediate changes in spatial design focus on improving environmental quality and enhancing user interaction within spaces. Recommendations include optimizing indoor air quality through biophilic designs, restructuring urban spaces to reduce pollution, and introducing dynamic commercial setups such as pop-up stores to adapt to fluctuating consumer behaviors. These modifications are aimed at creating healthier, more engaging, and flexible urban environments that respond to the urgent needs highlighted by the pandemic.
Current beliefs and assumptions reflect a blend of real-time adaptations and visions for the near future. There is a strong advocacy for maintaining high adaptability in spatial designs to accommodate unforeseen changes. The integration of virtual and real environments is increasingly pertinent, as it caters to the growing homebound nature of modern lifestyles facilitated by digital technologies. Moreover, the shift towards online shopping and the reconfiguration of medical spaces indicate a broader trend towards more efficient and user-centric designs. These evolving patterns underscore the need for spaces that can support diverse and rapidly changing societal roles and functions.
Looking forward to 2050, stakeholders envision a landscape where technological innovations play a pivotal role in spatial design, driven by enhanced capabilities in sterilization, air quality management, and seamless integration of virtual and physical spaces. Anticipated advancements in medical facility design specifically tailored to pandemic readiness highlight a proactive approach to healthcare infrastructure. Moreover, the planning of large outdoor spaces is expected to better manage public gatherings and streamline logistics, reflecting a strategic response to the challenges of high-density urban living.
In summary, the comprehensive analysis provided by the “New Mindset Towards Spatial Experiences” framework underscores the necessity for a multidimensional approach in spatial design. It highlights the interplay between immediate actionable changes and long-term strategic planning. This approach is essential for creating spaces that are not only responsive to current demands but also adaptable to future challenges, ensuring that spatial design continues to enhance human health, safety, and social interaction in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Such a forward-looking perspective is critical for academics, designers, and policymakers as they collaborate to shape the future of our built environments in a post-pandemic era.

4.2.4. Results Analysis

In this stage, stakeholder participation was crucial. They utilized a Miro template to list their hopes and concerns, reaching a consensus primarily in areas like traffic management, spatial layout, sanitation and safety, technological applications, and behavioral norms. The fears highlighted include a fear of interpersonal interactions and crowded places, stemming from both unpleasant past experiences and ongoing concerns about the coronavirus. The uncertainty regarding space functionality and the need for flexibility indicate strategies for adapting to future changes, reflecting the significant impact of public health crises on daily life and space utilization.
On the hopes and aspirations front, stakeholders envision a future where public spaces are more open, maintaining social safety distances, and where technology is integrated into daily life, facilitating safer and more convenient social interactions. These aspirations reflect urgent needs for safety, comfort, health, and flexibility, posing higher demands on future spatial design and planning.
The differences in these concerns arise from diverse cultural and social backgrounds, personal experiences, economic interests, and technological development levels. These factors lead to varying understandings and needs regarding space and social interactions, influencing stakeholders’ expectations for future space usage. This analysis not only aids in understanding the multidimensional needs of transition design in the new normal but also in guiding the creation of more inclusive and adaptive solutions.
As the discussion evolved, stakeholders’ resonance emerged, enhancing collective participation and incorporating various social science methods like participatory research and stakeholder analysis into the design process. This participatory approach is a fundamental principle of transition design, aiming to integrate diverse perspectives into solution formulation to better address future challenges. Through this intervention, not only were the problems faced by spatial experiences during the pandemic outlined but new beliefs and visions for the future design of these spaces were also established. This laid the groundwork for formulating solutions that embody the principles of transition design, integrating the perspectives of different stakeholders to effectively tackle future challenges.

4.3. Phase 3: Interventions

4.3.1. Envisioning Future Living

The stakeholder group, based on the previous organization and discussion, envisioned a future in 2050 where fears have been eliminated and hopes realized. The process of envisioning future living included:
  • Imagining the forms of achieving the vision goals, envisioning the ways of experiencing new spatial norms in the post-pandemic era of 2050.
  • Stakeholders work together to develop a brief lifestyle-based story to understand how their concerns and fears were addressed and hopes and aspirations realized, making sure the story is about a lifestyle rather than a description of solutions and technologies.
This transformative approach not only addresses basic safety and comfort but also extends to fulfill higher aspirations of self-actualization and community belonging. By contrasting the shift from current societal focuses on productivity and economic growth to future priorities like sustainability and inclusivity, Figure 3 highlights how the reimagined spatial experiences of 2050 cater to a broad spectrum of human needs, effectively addressing the fears and aspirations identified by the stakeholder group “space designer”. This depiction serves as a crucial tool for understanding the potential impacts of future designs on everyday life, providing a concrete example of how design interventions can lead to a more inclusive and flexible living environment.

4.3.2. Project Planning

The stakeholders brainstormed around transportation accessibility, green spaces and outdoor areas, medical spaces, and public spaces, generating project ideas as the first step towards the transition path to 2050. Then, in each of the four themes, one project was selected, interconnected to gain greater impact, and completed with a project description (see Figure 4).
Transition design is a cyclical process, alternating between jointly envisioning a future vision and practical present-day projects. As project outcomes and insights are gained, the future planning process will restart, with new projects further along the transition path providing an information basis.

4.3.3. Basic Strategies for Future Spatial Experience Design

In the post-pandemic era, the increasing demands for safe, healthy, and intelligent spaces necessitate an innovative approach to spatial experience design, one that is grounded in the principles of transition design. This method aims to foster sustainable, social, and economic transformations through systemic, participatory, and for-ward-thinking design strategies. The following section elaborates on the strategies for future spatial experience design, incorporating the core characteristics of transition design to ensure inclusivity, sustainability, and progressiveness:
  • Utilizing systemic thinking, space design should consider not only individual elements but their interactions and impacts on broader societal and environmental contexts. This approach facilitates immediate responsiveness while promoting profound systemic changes.
  • Space design must pursue core values of sustainability and social equity. Designers are tasked not merely with shaping spaces but also with guiding users towards adopting and practicing sustainable and health-conscious lifestyles through design.
  • The design process should be inclusive, engaging stakeholders from diverse backgrounds—including residents, policymakers, experts, and NGOs—in a collaborative and co-creative manner. This participatory approach ensures the creation of widely accepted and highly tailored spatial solutions.
  • Designers are encouraged to engage in forward thinking to address current challenges while also envisioning and realizing future spatial aspirations. This involves leveraging advanced technologies and innovative methods, such as virtual and augmented reality, to enhance the potential and functionality of spaces.
  • Specific Strategies:
  • Optimizing spatial layout: re-evaluate spatial functionality and circulation based on systemic thinking to enhance overall efficiency and interaction within spaces.
  • Enhancing facilities: strengthen health and safety facilities, ensuring their sustainability and minimal environmental impact.
  • Incorporating natural elements: utilize natural elements to increase comfort and ecological friendliness, promoting psychological and physical health.
  • Promoting modular design: increase spatial adaptability to meet future uncertainties through flexible and changeable modular elements.
  • Integrating smart technologies: embed intelligent technologies to enhance functional capabilities of spaces, optimizing space usage and management through data-driven approaches.
  • Constructing virtual–real spaces: employ emerging technologies to create spaces where virtual and real elements intertwine, providing richer and more diverse user experiences.
  • Improving supporting policies: advocate for policy frameworks that support innovative and sustainable design practices, ensuring widespread application and lasting impact.
  • Focusing on community involvement: ensure that design solutions are culturally adaptive and region-specific through close collaboration with local communities.
  • Continuous optimization and iteration: constantly refine and improve design based on ongoing feedback and assessments to ensure long-term effectiveness and relevance.
  • Developing targeted design approaches: the objective of developing targeted design approaches is to formulate design strategies that are specifically tailored to different spatial types.
  • Guided by these basic principles and implementation strategies, future spatial experience design will undoubtedly break through traditional constraints, keeping pace with the times to create a brand-new, safer, smarter, and more human-centric experiential paradigm, contributing to the construction of a better life.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Contribution

This study examines design strategies for post-epidemic spatial experience through the lens of transition design. We uncovered that transition design offers a robust framework for addressing complex, systemic challenges in spatial experience design. Theoretically, our research contributes by delineating how transition design principles can be effectively integrated into spatial planning and management to foster sustainable, resilient, and human-centered environments. Importantly, this research contributes directly to advancing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), through its proposed strategies in spatial design. By advocating for modular design and the integration of smart technologies, this study supports the creation of urban environments that are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, aligning with the objectives of SDG 11. Concurrently, by enhancing facilities to bolster health and safety measures, this research addresses SDG 3, aiming to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Furthermore, the policy and community engagement recommendations provided delineate practical steps for the effective implementation of these strategies, reinforcing the attainment of these critical sustainability goals.
Practically, we demonstrated the applicability of these principles through strategic interventions aimed at enhancing the safety, flexibility, and sustainability of spaces. Our findings suggest that transition design facilitates a multi-dimensional approach, considering not just the physical layout but also the socio-cultural dynamics that define space usage. This holistic view is crucial in post-pandemic settings where public health, safety, and well-being are paramount.

5.2. Potential of Transition Design

Transition design emerges as a valuable tool in the designer’s toolkit, capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by the pandemic. It provides a strategic framework that is not only reactive but also proactive, enabling the anticipation of future changes and challenges. This anticipatory capability is of vital importance in the design of spaces that are adaptable, resilient, and capable of meeting evolving user needs and global sustainability goals.
However, the potential of transition design is inextricably linked to its limitations. The expansive nature of transition design can occasionally give rise to difficulties in implementation, particularly when confronted with specific, localized issues. The high level of abstraction and the necessity for extensive stakeholder engagement can also extend the design process, potentially impeding the ability to respond to urgent spatial needs in a timely manner.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study has established a foundational understanding of how transition design can enhance spatial experiences post-pandemic, several limitations warrant further investigation. The theoretical depth provided needs to be complemented with more empirical studies to validate the proposed strategies and ensure their effectiveness across different contexts and environments.
Future research should focus on refining the tools and methodologies of transition design to enhance its practicality and applicability. This includes developing more targeted strategies that address specific spatial challenges and exploring the integration of advanced technologies such as AI and IoT to streamline the design process and improve the adaptability of spaces.

5.4. Recommendations for Future Research

To advance the field of transition design, particularly in enhancing spatial experiences in a post-pandemic context, this study proposes several avenues for future research. First and foremost, it is essential to conduct comprehensive case studies that apply the strategies outlined in this research to real-world scenarios. Such empirical studies are crucial for validating the effectiveness of these strategies and identifying areas in need of refinement. Furthermore, there is a pressing need to develop and enhance methodological tools that are specifically tailored to facilitate the application of transition design principles across a range of spatial contexts. The objective of these tools is to streamline the design process, thereby enhancing its adaptability and applicability to diverse environmental and societal needs.
Moreover, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations is of the utmost importance. The integration of insights from technology, sociology, and environmental science can significantly enrich the transition design approach. Such collaborations can facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of how spaces are utilized and experienced, thereby ensuring that transition design strategies are robust, context-sensitive, and sustainable.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates the transformative potential of transition design in reimagining and reshaping spatial experiences for the post-pandemic era. By continuously refining both the theoretical foundations and practical applications of transition design, we can better prepare for and respond to future spatial challenges. This ongoing refinement will not only advance our capabilities in spatial design but also contribute to broader sustainability goals, ultimately enhancing societal well-being in the face of ongoing and future challenges. This comprehensive approach promises to extend the relevance and impact of transition design, rendering it a cornerstone for future explorations into sustainable spatial experiences.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.K. and C.T.; methodology, Y.K.; software, C.T.; validation, Y.K., C.T. and C.L.; formal analysis, C.T.; investigation, C.T.; resources, C.L.; data curation, Y.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.K.; writing—review and editing, Y.K. and C.T.; visualization, C.L.; supervision, Y.K.; project administration, Y.K.; funding acquisition, Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the National Cheng Kung University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No.: NCKU HREC-E-111-298-2 Date of approval: 29 September 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Every participant had read and signed the voluntary informed consent before he/she participated in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, to all participants for their contributions, and to National Taiwan Normal University and Asia University for supporting this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Survey questions and answers.
Table A1. Survey questions and answers.
Proposed QuestionsAnswers
What is your professional background and current job?A: I studied interior design in college and master’s degree, and am currently pursuing a doctorate in architectural design. I have 13 years of design work experience.
B: I hold a Master’s in Industrial Design and a Ph.D. in Applied Arts, and I’m currently a professor in a university design department with 20 years of experience in design.
C: I studied interior design in university, pursued a master’s in industrial education, and earned a Ph.D. in design; I’m now a professor in the Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development with 30 years in design.
How has the pandemic
altered your perspective on spatial design?		A: The pandemic has highlighted the necessity for adaptable and multifunctional spaces that can easily transition between personal and professional uses.
B: The pandemic has reinforced the importance of designing spaces that are versatile, health-oriented, and responsive to changing public health needs.
C: In the wake of the epidemic, I am more concerned about adaptability, and healthy design.
What are the key challenges you see in achieving
sustainable spatial designs post-pandemic?		A: The main challenges include integrating renewable energy sources effectively, ensuring material sustainability, and maintaining indoor environmental quality in denser layouts.
B: Integrating new technologies sustainably and affordably while meeting increased health and safety standards poses a significant challenge.
C: Balancing health, environmental sustainability, and cost-effectiveness remains a challenging triad in post-pandemic spatial design.
Can you provide examples of successful integration of smart technologies in spatial design?A: Successful examples include the use of IoT for real-time environmental monitoring and responsive lighting systems that adjust based on occupancy and natural light availability.
B: Automated ventilation systems and touch-free devices have been successfully integrated to enhance both sustainability and hygiene in spaces.
C: After the epidemic, the hand sanitizers in most shopping mall restrooms have been replaced by sensor-based ones, which has successfully reduced the probability of cross-infection.
What strategies would you recommend for optimizing spatial layouts to enhance safety and sustainability?A: I recommend using modular designs that can be reconfigured as needed, employing biophilic design principles for better air quality and mental health, and enhancing the use of natural light and ventilation.
B: Utilizing dynamic space planning tools and materials that reduce environmental impact while ensuring spaces can quickly adapt to health guidelines is key.
C: Implementing randomized design is the key strategy.
How do you envision the
future of spatial design in light of your experiences
and expertise?		A: I see a future where spatial design is highly responsive to user needs, fully integrated with smart technologies, and deeply committed to ecological and social sustainability.
B: I envision a future where spatial design is seamlessly integrated with technology to create dynamic, sustainable environments that cater to evolving human needs.
C: I see the future of spatial design as increasingly interconnected with technology, focusing on flexibility, user well-being, and environmental stewardship.
Table A2. Concerns and fears of stakeholders.
Table A2. Concerns and fears of stakeholders.
Stakeholders’ Spatial Experience during the Epidemic: Concern & Fears
1. Fear of interacting with people.
2. Fear of crowded places due to unpleasant experiences.
3. Inability to maintain a comfortable distance between individuals.
4. Blurred definitions of spatial functions, preferring to maintain higher flexibility to adapt to changes.
5. Reducing the intensity of business centers.
6. Difficulty in grasping the scale of small spaces, causing discomfort to people.
7. Unable to comprehend others’ perceptions of our behavior in spaces.
8. High skepticism towards hygiene and safety, affecting experiences and potentially shifting preferences from shared housing to studio apartments.
9. Concerns about the quality of indoor air.
10. Concerns about the materials used in interior construction.
11. Worry over the shared use of public spaces.
12. The need to maintain social distance in public spaces.
13. Restrictions on behavior.
14. Limitations on the ways spaces can be used.
15. Commercial architecture faces structural challenges due to the pandemic, competing simultaneously with online alternatives.
Table A3. Hopes and aspirations of Stakeholders.
Table A3. Hopes and aspirations of Stakeholders.
Stakeholders’ Spatial Experience during the Epidemic: Hopes and Aspirations
1. Public spaces should develop towards a more open design to maintain social safety distances.
2. There is no need to fear interacting with people.
3. There is no need to fear congregations of people.
4. Maintain a high degree of spatial flexibility to adapt to future changes.
5. We do not need to discuss this pandemic; there was no need to fear COVID-19 at that time.
6. Traditional urban planning needs to change, with each unit becoming more mixed rather than more segregated.
7. Expect applications in virtual spaces to become more mature, enhancing the experience.
8. Curious about the potential for future development of integrated virtual and real experiences.
9. The experience of remote communication can be smoother.
10. Integrate internet technology more into people’s lives, facilitating interpersonal communication.
11. Future medical spaces should be built more logically, improving people’s experiences.
12. How monitoring stations and temporary hospitals can be repurposed when not needed, looking forward to the development of sustainable spaces to optimize post-pandemic experiences.
13. How testing stations, when idle, can be repurposed or continue to serve during telemedicine stages, enhancing the integrity of people’s online medical consultation experiences.
Table A4. New mindset towards spatial experiences.
Table A4. New mindset towards spatial experiences.
Proposed QuestionsAnswers
What Can You Change?1. Indoor Changes: Emphasis on indoor air quality by incorporating green plants to optimize air quality and improve the indoor experience for people.
2. Stepping Out of Room Spaces: Optimizing experiences and ensuring the physical and mental health of residents.
3. Streets and Units: Reducing road width on streets to decrease air pollution and enhance the urban roadway experience.
4. Increasing Greenery and Bike Lanes: Improving urban air experience and quality by adding more plants and bike paths.
5. Responding to Commercial Activities: Introducing pop-up store formats to revitalize some unused spaces, optimizing the urban leisure experience for residents.
6. Urban Living Room: Transforming a space not just into a commercial area but also including activity furniture and plants, creating a rest area for everyone as a public space, enriching the urban experience.
7. Increasing the Purchase of Air Purification Products: Such as electrostatic clothes, air purifiers, etc., to enhance the living experience.
Beliefs & Assumptions Now1. Future space design should maintain high flexibility to adapt to future changes, optimizing the living experience for residents.
2. Virtual-Real Integration: A significant part that makes modern people more homebound is that many of their needs and experiences can be fulfilled online.
3. Shopping patterns are increasingly moving online, with online shopping experiences becoming more diverse and efficient.
4. There is an anticipation for better medical spaces and services, eliminating the need to wait in hallways for medical services.
5. During the pandemic, access to medications and the convenience of telemedicine became more advantageous, with quicker times and more logical arrangements.
6. Single-use commercial buildings are unable to respond to pandemic challenges. Assuming a shift to mixed-use commercial complexes, more space could be allocated for dining and service areas.
7. In highly dense areas such as stations and squares, making larger openings in existing squares and spreading them throughout various city corners can optimize people’s experiences.
Beliefs & Assumptions 20501. Development of indoor sterilization and air quality equipment becomes more comprehensive
and diverse.
2. Consumption spaces with complete virtual-real integration, rapid logistics, and full services.
3. Establishment of medical spaces specifically designed for handling pandemics.
4. Concrete planning of large outdoor spaces, allowing for clearer separation and better control of people, vehicles, and logistics.
5. Large outdoor spaces can respond more swiftly to emergencies, with more logical planning of response measures.
6. Future regulations need flexible consideration, taking into account economic, livelihood, and social security aspects.

Appendix B

Sustainability 16 05834 g0a1
Figure A1. PESTE problem cognitive reasoning map.
Figure A1. PESTE problem cognitive reasoning map.
Sustainability 16 05834 g0a1

References

  1. Tušl, M.; Brauchli, R.; Kerksieck, P.; Bauer, G.F. Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on work and private life, mental well-being and self-rated health in German and Swiss employees: A cross-sectional online survey. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Faedda, S.; Plaisant, A.; Talu, V.; Tola, G. The role of urban environment design on health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 791656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shi, H.; Tung, T.-H.; Zhang, M.-X.; Luo, C.; Chen, H.; Wang, W. Correlation between Ontological Insecurity and Daily Epidemic Prevention Behavior among Inpatients during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Inq. J. Health Care Organ. Provis. Financ. 2023, 60, 00469580231152320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barreiro-Gen, M.; Lozano, R.; Zafar, A. Changes in sustainability priorities in organisations due to the COVID-19 outbreak: Averting environmental rebound effects on society. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sato, S.N.; Moreno, E.C.; Rubio-Zarapuz, A.; Dalamitros, A.A.; Yañez-Sepulveda, R.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Navigating the New Normal: Adapting Online and Distance Learning in the Post-Pandemic Era. Educ. Sci. 2023, 14, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Irwin, T. Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Des. Cult. 2015, 7, 229–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Irwin, T.; Kossoff, G.; Tonkinwise, C.; Scupelli, P. Transition Design 2015: A New Area of Design Research, Practice and Study That Proposes Design-Led Societal Transition toward More Sustainable Futures; Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gaziulusoy, A.I.; Ryan, C. Roles of design in sustainability transitions projects: A case study of Visions and Pathways 2040 project from Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1297–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Oliveira, F.; Nery, D.; Costa, D.G.; Silva, I.; Lima, L. A survey of technologies and recent developments for sustainable smart cycling. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hitti, N. Dezeen’s Top 10 Socially Distant Designs of 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.dezeen.com/2020/12/22/dezeen-top-10-socially-distant-designs-of-2020/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  11. Zandvoort, M.; Kooijmans, N.; Kirshen, P.; Brink, A.v.D. Designing with pathways: A spatial design approach for adaptive and sustainable landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Umrigar, N.; Pitroda, J.R. Multimodal urban transportation system for medium size cities. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. A 2023, 104, 1005–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Grassi, Y.S.; Díaz, M.F. Post-pandemic urban mobility in a medium-sized Latin American city. Is sustainable micro-mobility gaining ground? Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oestreich, L.; Rhoden, P.S.; Vieira, J.d.S.; Ruiz-Padillo, A. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the profile and preferences of urban mobility in Brazil: Challenges and opportunities. Travel Behav. Soc. 2023, 31, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Harris, M.; McCue, P. Pop-Up Cycleways: How a COVID-19 “Policy Window” Changed the Relationship Between Urban Planning, Transport, and Health in Sydney, Australia. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2023, 89, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ortar, N.; Chapelon, L.; Depeau, S.; Feildel, B.; Lammoglia, A.; Poisson, A.; Sayagh, D.; Barbé, L. Changing Cycling Practices and COVID Cycle Lanes in Five French Cities. In Cycling through the Pandemic; Ortar, N., Rérat, P., Eds.; The Urban Book Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  18. Oladimeji, D.; Gupta, K.; Kose, N.A.; Gundogan, K.; Ge, L.; Liang, F. Smart transportation: An overview of technologies and applications. Sensors 2023, 23, 3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kuo, Y.-H.; Leung, J.M.; Yan, Y. Public transport for smart cities: Recent innovations and future challenges. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2023, 306, 1001–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aroba, O.J.; Mabuza, P.; Mabaso, A.; Sibisi, P. Adoption of Smart Traffic System to Reduce Traffic Congestion in a Smart City; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  21. Taczanowska, K.; Tansil, D.; Wilfer, J.; Jiricka-Pürrer, A. The impact of age on people’s use and perception of urban green spaces and their effect on personal health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic—A case study of the metropolitan area of Vienna, Austria. Cities 2024, 147, 104798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Razali, I.A.K.M.; Shukor, S.F.A. Comparison of malaysian urban green spaces use prior and during the COVID-19 pandemic and preferences for post-pandemic design improvements. Plan. Malays. J. 2022, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ciesielski, M.; Gołos, P.; Stefan, F.; Taczanowska, K. Unveiling the Essential Role of Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond—A Systematic Literature Review. Forests 2024, 15, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hedenborg, S.; Fredman, P.; Hansen, A.S.; Wolf-Watz, D. Outdoorification of sports and recreation: A leisure transformation under the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Ann. Leis. Res. 2024, 27, 36–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ahmed, S.K.; Ali, R.M.; Lashin, M.M.; Sherif, F.F. Designing a new fast solution to control isolation rooms in hospitals depending on artificial intelligence decision. Biomed. Signal Process. Control. 2023, 79, 104100. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mehraeen, E.; SeyedAlinaghi, S.; Heydari, M.; Karimi, A.; Mahdavi, A.; Mashoufi, M.; Sarmad, A.; Mirghaderi, P.; Shamsabadi, A.; Qaderi, K.; et al. Telemedicine technologies and applications in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Health Inform. J. 2023, 29, 14604582231167431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gmunder, K.N.; Ruiz, J.W.; Franceschi, D.; Suarez, M.M. Demographics associated with US healthcare disparities are exacerbated by the telemedicine surge during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Telemed. Telecare 2024, 30, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Foglia, E.; Garagiola, E.; Bellavia, D.; Rossetto, F.; Baglio, F. Digital technology and COVID-19 pandemic: Feasibility and acceptance of an innovative telemedicine platform. Technovation 2024, 130, 102941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Johnson, K.; Parkinson, C.; Johnson, M.; Hamburger, M. Using Telemedicine interventions during COVID-19 to expand care post COVID-19. Am. J. Manag. Care 2023, 29, e31–e35. [Google Scholar]
  31. Abbasi, A.; Saberi, V.; Eghbali, H.; Saberi, H. Views from construction professionals on hospital project construction management using modular prefabricated materials and building information modeling support. Arch. Struct. Constr. 2024, 4, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nicholas, D.B.; Samson, P.; Hilsen, L.; McFarlane, J. Examining the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social work in health care. J. Soc. Work. 2023, 23, 334–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Guida, C.; Carpentieri, G. Quality of life in the urban environment and primary health services for the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic: An application to the city of Milan (Italy). Cities 2021, 110, 103038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Noland, R.B.; Iacobucci, E.; Zhang, W. Public views on the reallocation of street space due to COVID-19. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2023, 89, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, J.H.; Luchetti, M.; Aschwanden, D.; Sesker, A.A.; Strickhouser, J.E.; Terracciano, A.; Sutin, A.R. Perceived changes in social contact during COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Pers. Relatsh. 2022, 29, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Cheng, H.; Li, Z. Rethinking Urban Planning for Healthy Cities in the Wake of COVID-19 Lessons from Wuhan. Built Environ. 2023, 49, 207–228. [Google Scholar]
  37. Messner, W. The association of cultural and contextual factors with social contact avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. De-Toledo, K.P.; O’Hern, S.; Koppel, S. A city-level transport vision for 2050: Reimagined since COVID-19. Transp. Policy 2023, 132, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Amirzadeh, M.; Sobhaninia, S.; Buckman, S.T.; Sharifi, A. Towards building resilient cities to pandemics: A review of COVID-19 literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 89, 104326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lung, R.I.; Moraru, C.; Balazsi, R.; Both, I.; Aluas, M. Needs analysis as an instrument to design and adapt specific academic writing interventions. Cogn. Brain Behav. 2014, 18, 261. [Google Scholar]
  41. Buchanan, R. Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 2019, 5, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gaziulusoy, I.; Öztekin, E.E. Design for sustainability transitions: Origins, attitudes and future directions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Loorbach, D. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ceschin, F.; Gaziulusoy, I. Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Des. Stud. 2016, 47, 118–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Raby, F.; Dunne, A. Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Des. Philos. Pap. 2013, 12, 169–187. [Google Scholar]
  46. Manzini, E. New design knowledge. Des. Stud. 2009, 30, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meadows, D.H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer; Chelsea Green Publishing: Chelsea, VT, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  48. Capra, F.; Luisi, P.L. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  49. Irwin, T.; Tonkinwise, C.; Kossoff, G. Transition design: An educational framework for advancing the study and design of sustainable transitions. Cuad. Cent. Estud. Diseño Comun. Ens. 2020, 105, 31–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kossoff, G. Holism and the reconstitution of everyday life: A framework for transition to a sustainable society. In Grow Small, Think Beautiful: Ideas for a Sustainable World from Schumacher College; Floris Books: Edinburgh, UK, 2011; pp. 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Irwin, T.; Steagall, M.M. Transition Design: An approach to addressing wicked problems (and catalysing societal transitions toward more sustainable futures). In LINK 2021 Conference Proceedings; Auckland University of Technology: Auckland, New Zealand, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mok, L.; Gaziulusoy, I. Designing for sustainability transitions of aquaculture in Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Berisha Qehaja, A.; Kutllovci, E.; Shiroka Pula, J. Strategic management tools and techniques usage: A qualitative review. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2017, 65, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Saracoglu, B.O.; Ohunakin, O.S.; Adelekan, D.S.; Gill, J.; Atiba, O.E.; Okokpujie, I.P.; Atayero, A.A. A framework for selecting the location of very large photovoltaic solar power plants on a global/supergrid. Energy Rep. 2018, 4, 586–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sahin, A.; Imamoglu, G.; Murat, M.; Ayyildiz, E. A holistic decision-making approach to assessing service quality in higher education institutions. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2024, 92, 101812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ho, J.K.-K. Formulation of a systemic PEST analysis for strategic analysis. Eur. Acad. Res. 2014, 2, 6478–6492. [Google Scholar]
  57. Irwin, T.; Kossoff, G.; Gasperak, T. COVID-19 in the US through the lens of Transition Design. Cuad. Cent. Estud. Diseño Comun. Ens. 2021, 132, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05834 g001
Figure 1. Transition design framework [6].
Figure 1. Transition design framework [6].
Sustainability 16 05834 g001
Sustainability 16 05834 g002
Figure 2. Research framework.
Figure 2. Research framework.
Sustainability 16 05834 g002
Sustainability 16 05834 g003
Figure 3. Future snapshot.
Figure 3. Future snapshot.
Sustainability 16 05834 g003
Sustainability 16 05834 g004
Figure 4. Future projects and solutions.
Figure 4. Future projects and solutions.
Sustainability 16 05834 g004
Table 1. Multidimensional impact of COVID-19 on spatial experience design.
Table 1. Multidimensional impact of COVID-19 on spatial experience design.
LevelProblem IdentificationInterconnections
politicsSocial distance, telecommuting policiesPolicy measures affect economic activities and social patterns, while technological applications address emerging needs and environmental regulations shape design standards.
economyIncreased online shopping, health and safety spending, supply chain vulnerabilityEconomic shifts spur technological innovation, underscore social disparities, and elevate environmental awareness.
societyChanges in social interaction patterns, social inequality highlightedBalancing social distancing with cohesion is essential; spatial design must foster inclusivity and fairness, leveraging technology to satisfy new social demands.
technologyNon-contact technologies, VR/AR, Internet of Things (IoT)Technological innovation addresses political, economic, and social challenges but could exacerbate environmental issues.
environmentIncreased environmental awareness, new hygiene standardsEnvironmental concerns influence policies and standards, necessitate improvements in materials and cleaning methods, and demand environmentally mindful technology use.
Table 2. Interviewee profile.
Table 2. Interviewee profile.
Number/NameEngage in Design WorkPossess Spatial Design Expertise
(Rate 1–5)		Understanding of Sustainable Space
(Rate 1–5)
A-Mr. Lin13 years4: Familiar4: Aware
B-Mr. Teng30 years5: Very familiar4: Aware
C-Mr. Chien 20 years3: Somewhat familiar5: Very aware
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kong, Y.; Teng, C.; Liu, C. Transition Design as a Strategy for Post-Pandemic Spatial Experience Enhancement: A Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145834

AMA Style

Kong Y, Teng C, Liu C. Transition Design as a Strategy for Post-Pandemic Spatial Experience Enhancement: A Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):5834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145834

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kong, Yu, Chenglein Teng, and Chiencheng Liu. 2024. "Transition Design as a Strategy for Post-Pandemic Spatial Experience Enhancement: A Sustainability Perspective" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 5834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145834

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop