A Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Space Utilization of Cultural Heritage in Children’s Education: A Case Study of Wuhan’s Historical Districts, China

Abstract

Cultural heritage has educational value because it provides children with a realistic learning environment and a wealth of educational resources. This study intends to fill a gap in academic research by evaluating the efficiency of utilizing cultural heritage in children’s education. This study uses the Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) method to create a comprehensive evaluation index system. Through research and analysis of six key elements—inheritance of historical context, improvement in environmental quality, completion of infrastructure, achievement of educational goals, participation in children in activities, and sustainable development—it was discovered that rational utilization of cultural heritage space significantly improves the educational experience and promotes cultural heritage transmission. This study is significant since it provides an empirical foundation for educational practice and serves as a valuable guide for innovative heritage transmission and policy creation. Our findings emphasize the necessity of incorporating educational goals into preserving and revitalizing cultural heritage, advocating for a forward-thinking approach that honors the past while fostering learning and progress for future generations.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage is a rare and non-renewable resource. The creation of a corresponding educational mechanism is an important way to recognize and protect the world’s cultural heritage [1]. Initially, the protection of cultural heritage was led by experts and governments, focusing mainly on the materiality and historicity of cultural heritage. With the development of the concept of human rights and democracy, the protection of cultural heritage gradually shifted to a broader and more inclusive perspective, emphasizing the social value of cultural heritage and civic participation and responsibility [2].

Cultural heritage, as a valued legacy of human history and civilization, takes on new meaning as a society and its understanding of heritage advances. The present international perspective of cultural heritage has expanded beyond its physical characteristics to stress its deeper cultural value and relevance to modern society [3]. In Chinese legislation, “cultural relics protection units” refer to immovable cultural relics with substantial historical, artistic, or scientific significance, which are grouped into multiple tiers of protection based on their worth and relevance, such as national, provincial, municipal, and county [4]. In 2005, the State Council document clarified the definition of cultural heritage, which encompasses both tangible and intangible cultural property [5]. China’s system of classifying and identifying cultural heritage protection units at the legal level is unique to China, although it is consistent with international conceptions and goals for cultural heritage conservation.

Many policies and studies have focused on the educational potential of cultural heritage spaces. In 1972, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, published by UNESCO, was a milestone in the development of children’s heritage education. It highlights the importance of education in protecting, promoting, and enhancing the dissemination of cultural heritage knowledge [6]. UNESCO launched the World Heritage Education Programme in 1994, emphasizing that children’s heritage education is the most effective means to achieve the sustainable development of cultural heritage [7]. The importance of young people’s exposure to culture is also set out in the European Commission 2008 [8].

In 1999, The Burra Charter put forward the importance of the social value of cultural heritage spaces [9]. In 2015, The Guidelines for the Protection of Cultural Relics and Monuments in China also emphasized the social and educational value of cultural heritage space [10]. Children’s exposure to cultural heritage has profound educational value. In this process, children can not only establish their own cultural identity but also learn the knowledge and skills of cultural heritage conservation through interdisciplinary exchanges [11]. In addition, children’s exposure to different forms of cultural heritage enables them to foster global awareness and understand and respect the differences between different cultures, forming a worldview with an open mind and inclusive heart [12]. Therefore, the utilization of cultural heritage space needs to consider the needs of children’s education. However, there is a lack of comprehensive qualitative and quantitative evaluation research in this area. The Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) method is widely used in architectural research and is gaining popularity, but it has never been applied in the context of cultural heritage utilization.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Cultural Heritage Utilization

From the 19th century to the 21st century, the evolution of cultural heritage conservation theory has witnessed a gradual shift in conservation priorities, that is, from a single value base to a multi-dimensional consideration of technical needs and users’ needs [13]. Since the 20th century, the concept of “space utilization” has gradually appeared in the vision of the international charter [14]. For example, The Burra Charter considers space utilization as one of the strategies to protect heritage buildings, believing that this can not only maintain the value of heritage but also enhance its functionality and utility in the future [15]. The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, published by UNESCO, also emphasizes the need for “conservation through transformation” [16].

The concept of space utilization of cultural heritage originates from the traditional concept of the protection of historical relics and buildings, which marks the transformation of protection thinking from passive and static preservation to active and dynamic activation. The key to space utilization lies in the reuse of cultural heritage spaces, aiming at finding suitable new functions for these spaces. Meanwhile, it follows the principle of minimizing changes to their key structures but maintaining the authenticity and integrity of heritage spaces to the greatest extent [17]. This study focuses on the post-utilization phase of the space utilization of cultural heritage. The concept and method of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) can be applied to evaluate the effect and performance in this stage. This step has received little attention from researchers.

2.2. Post Occupancy Evaluation

Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) originated in the 1960s and its theory, methodology, and practice have matured in Western countries [18]. As a systematic process, POE uses research to investigate human needs, building performance, and facilities management [19]. Moreover, it is an invaluable tool for determining whether a building project meets the end user’s needs, such as job performance, productivity, and occupant performance [20]. POE plays a crucial role in a building’s life cycle through feedback. It offers a variety of activities and benefits, such as evaluating building performance, investigating the relationship between occupant behavior and the use of building resources, optimizing the indoor environment for occupants, making more informed decisions about future building design, and increasing opportunities for dialogue between the design team and its partners [21,22].

Over time, the definition and scope of POE have expanded and developed. Li, P., Froese, T. M., and Brager, G. (2018) give an up-to-date analysis and overview of the practice of POE in their study, emphasizing its vital position in the building life cycle [23]. Jiang, H., Wang, M., and Shu, X. (2022) discuss the interdisciplinary nature of POE in their work, which includes scientometric analyses that show the trends, frontiers, and major themes in POE research, as well as the role of information technology in driving the development of POE techniques and tools [24]. Elsayed et al. (2023) conducted a thorough literature review of POE practices in residential buildings in the European Union, highlighting inconsistencies in research methodology and data processing [25].

As POE research has progressed, occupant feedback has been a key research topic beyond social scientists’ purview. Occupant perception elements will be progressively included in POE research. Future research approaches will transition from designer and builder-oriented to user-oriented. Some researchers established a user-centered philosophy of the built environment, which serves as a theoretical foundation for occupant feedback and satisfaction assessment in POE [26,27]. The social practice of attaining environmental regeneration in sustainable buildings was further investigated by Reckermann (2017), offering fresh insights into user behavior research in POE and environmental psychology [28]. Case studies are crucial to POE. For example, Aguirre (2019) used numerous case studies of UK school renovation projects to show the high association between indoor environmental quality and user performance [29]. These case studies offer empirical assistance for relevant institutions and policymakers to manage and optimize the use of cultural heritage places, in addition to confirming the usefulness of POE in practical applications.

2.3. Children’s Heritage Education

In 1998, the Council of Europe defined education for cultural heritage as a pedagogical approach based on cultural heritage, combining active educational approaches, cross-curricular approaches, and partnerships in the fields of education and culture, and using a wide range of educational models for communication and expression. The Faro Convection Action Plan Handbook 2018–2019 also proposes the definition of “cultural heritage education”: develop and implement diverse and creative formal and non-formal educational activities, curricula, and games for children up to 18 years of age; carry out these activities through the active participation and cooperation of community members, children, parents, educators, and administrators [2].

The goal of children’s heritage education is to help children discover cultural heritage, gain knowledge and experience through experiential learning, and at the same time, develop children’s critical thinking, creative expression, and social responsibility [30]. Critical and anti-essentialist learning of heritage culture is not about the age of the children, but about how to shape an inclusive and exploratory space for them to learn, and how to promote children’s critical engagement [31]. Field trips provide an authentic way to teach history, help children learn about cultural heritage, enhance a sense of belonging, and promote deeper understanding [32]. Carrying out all kinds of children’s heritage education activities in cultural heritage sites is not only the practice of the concept and goal of children’s heritage education, but also broadens dimensions and enriches connotations of this field, and provides diversified examples.

Since the signing of the World Heritage Convention in 1985, causes related to world heritage in China have developed rapidly, and the number and types of world heritage sites are among the top in the world. However, compared with the rapidly developing world heritage scale and the subsequent world heritage tourism, China’s world heritage education and research work are relatively lagging [33]. Since The General Office of the State Council stressed the inclusion of cultural heritage in the education system in 2005, although the number of cultural heritage education spaces for children in China has increased significantly [34], the participation of children remains low. It is difficult for the existing education space to meet the needs of urban children, and there is no effective evaluation and management system for the space utilization of cultural heritage [35].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Object: Historical Districts of Wuhan, China

With a history of 3500 years, Wuhan is a famous historical and cultural city in China and one of the birthplaces of China’s “Chu” culture. There are many historical and cultural blocks and buildings in Wuhan, including several provincial-level blocks and more than 200 outstanding historical buildings [36]. In the past period, the protection and transformation of Wuhan’s historical and cultural districts have been carried out successfully, and initially realized the use of blocks to present the historical memory and style of Wuhan. Meanwhile, the Wuhan government also pays attention to strengthening the rational utilization of historical and cultural resources, highlighting the display function and ornamental function of cultural relics and monuments to improve the modern use function of historical buildings [37].

The total population of Wuhan is 13.649 million, with 2.11 million children (0 to 18 years old), accounting for 17% of the total population, ranking second to Shenzhen in China [38]. As a child-friendly city, in recent years, under the guidance of the Wuhan municipal government, a series of child-friendly city policies have been introduced, including the planning and construction of children’s activity facilities for children’s learning, gaming, and experiencing, and the strengthening of the transformation of urban space and service facilities to more child-friendly styles [39]. For example, the Memorial Hall of the Former Site of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, Jianghanguan Museum, Wuhan Children’s Library, Wuhan Art Museum, Jianghan Road Street Museum, etc., all consider the needs and characteristics of children to revitalize the space utilization of cultural heritage (Figure 1). However, there is no overall space utilization approach and operational plan for the use of cultural heritage resources for children’s heritage education, which sparked the interest in this study.

This research refers to the systematic planning of the historical and cultural heritage area in the main urban area of Wuhan [40], selecting the historical block in Wuhan Jianghan Road as a research object (Figure 2). The historical block in Wuhan Jianghan Road is the first batch of national historical districts in China, with a total area of about 51 hectares and a history of about 160 years. It shows the modern concession culture, trade culture, revolutionary culture, and Li Fen culture of Hankou, and has a relatively concentrated cultural heritage. At the same time, the historical buildings and historical environment in this area are the original appearance retained throughout history. It has a relatively complete historical outlook [41]. There are 20 existing cultural relic protection sites in the block, including four national-level sites, two provincial-level sites, 13 municipal-level sites, 41 municipal outstanding historical buildings, and 64 municipal buildings. The rich historical and cultural resources constitute the core part of the cultural heritage in Wuhan city [42]. Between 2014 and 2016, the renovation plan of the block not only enhanced the functionality and comfort of the block but also provided strong support for the space utilization of cultural heritage in this area.

3.2. The Post Occupancy Evaluation

Following the Post Occupancy Evaluation (OPE) method, this study divides the post-utilization evaluation process into three key steps [43]: the preparation stage, the implementation stage, and the summary stage (

Table 1. Workflow content of post-utilization evaluation.

Evaluation Stage	Work Process	Work Content
1. Preparation Stage	1. Understand the evaluation object	Understand the background through literature and field investigation
	2. Design the evaluation plan	Define goals, scope, system, and methods
2. Implementation Stage	3. Collect data	Collect data through questionnaires, interviews, observations, and records
	4. Analyze data	Conduct qualitative and quantitative analysis
3. Summary Stage	5. Summarize the evaluation results	Identify strengths and problems
	6. Propose improvement measures	Propose improvement measures based on the results
	7. Give feedback to the management department	Report results and recommendations to management

) to ensure that the evaluation work is systematic and scientific. During the preparation phase of the assessment, we identified the evaluation’s objectives, designed the evaluation instruments, and determined the data-gathering techniques and indicators. During the implementation phase of the evaluation, we collected data and user comments on the post-use of cultural heritage places via field visits, observation recordings, and interviews. Summary phase: following data collection, we conducted a thorough study to determine the educational utilization of cultural heritage, the direct impact of educational activities on children, and the long-term viability of the utilization initiatives.

Firstly, the overall situation of Jianghan Road and Zhongshan Avenue historical blocks was understood through the literature, field investigation, and interviews. The second step is to invite experts and children to participate in interviews and questionnaires. The experts come from professional fields such as cultural heritage protection, urban planning, and children’s heritage education, and are familiar with the research objects to ensure the accuracy of the research results. Based on field investigation, this study selects representative cultural heritage education spaces, which are as follows: 1. Memorial Hall of the Former Site of the China Federation of Trade Unions; 2. Bao Yuan Road; 3. Hankou Jiangcheng Bookstore; 4. Hankou Water Tower; 5. Wuhan Art Museum; 6. Wuhan Children’s Library; 7. Jianghan Road Square; and 8. Jianghanguan Museum (Figure 3). Children were randomly interviewed and surveyed, and 200 questionnaires were distributed in eight locations to ensure the universality and randomness of the survey. Through the analysis of the investigation results from two different subjects, this research comprehensively understands the performance of historical districts in education and cultural inheritance, as well as the educational effect of space utilization of historical blocks in children’s education.

This study takes the form of multi-subject participation, mainly involving experts and children. Experts, with the corresponding professional knowledge of historical protection, heritage education, industrial operation, and other aspects, can give more accurate and objective professional evaluations of the space utilization of historical sites. For children, although they are less familiar with the professional knowledge related to the utilization of cultural heritage, they are direct users of the space and direct participants in educational activities, and the evaluation is characterized by intuitiveness and authenticity. Taking into account the cognitive and expressive abilities of children, the age limit for children was set at 7 to 14 years. The selection of this age range was based on the fact that children of this stage already have a certain level of understanding and self-expression, so they can complete the questionnaire more accurately [44]. Meanwhile, they are at the most sensitive and flexible development level for cultural heritage education. By focusing on children in this stage, this study was able to effectively collect targeted data on the impact of space utilization of cultural heritage on children, thereby providing a basis for improving and optimizing educational activities.

3.3. System of Post Occupancy Evaluation

The basic object of POE of the space utilization of cultural heritage education is to evaluate the implementation effect after the completion of activities, mainly focusing on whether the space utilization has truly achieved the goal of children’s cultural heritage education; whether it has promoted the sustainable development and protection of cultural heritage resources; whether it has comprehensively improved the environmental quality of cultural heritage architectural space, external public space, street facades, landscape sketches, etc.; whether it has developed the basic service facilities of cultural heritage based on the guidance of children’s cultural heritage education; whether it has upgraded the cultural space into a more creative level; and whether it has promoted the communication and identification of children, played a positive role, and provided convenient channels for participation. The steps of constructing the evaluation system in this study are as follows:

• Field investigation and interview: This stage mainly included recording and studying the current situation of space utilization of historical blocks, and interviewing subjects involved in the process, aiming to understand the basic cultural information of the area and identify the challenges and influencing factors of space utilization for educational purposes.
• Establish a hierarchy (

  Table 2. Evaluation indicator weights.

  The Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Space Utilization of Cultural Heritage in Children’s Education (Weight 1)	Second-Level Indicator	Weight	Third-Level Indicator	Weight	Forth-level Indicator	Weight
  	B1 Inheritance of Historical Context	0.3477	C1 Continuance of Layout and Texture	0.0895	D1 Continuance of the overall layout	0.0447
  					D2 Continuance of traditional layout	0.0447
  			C2 Rectification of Historical Elements	0.1558	D3 Building renovation	0.0779
  					D4 Regulation of environmental elements	0.0779
  			C3 Inheritance of Historical Context	0.1024	D5 Historical figures	0.0341
  					D6 Historical events	0.0341
  					D7 Folk art	0.0341
  	B2 Improvement in Environmental Quality	0.2058	C4 Street Facade	0.0802	D8 Style of doors and windows	0.0267
  					D9 Shop sign	0.0267
  					D10 Facade decoration	0.0267
  			C5 Floor Paving	0.0389	D11 Paving material	0.0130
  					D12 Paving color	0.0130
  					D13 Paving patterns	0.0130
  			C6 Public Space	0.0584	D14 Green plaza	0.0292
  					D15 Featured landscape	0.0292
  			C7 Building Space	0.0284	D16 Built environment	0.0142
  					D17 Building function	0.0142
  	B3 Completion of Infrastructure	0.1181	C8 Municipal Facilities	0.0675	D18 Water supply and drainage facilities	0.0169
  					D19 Power supply and communication facility	0.0169
  					D20 Gas and sanitation facilities	0.0169
  					D21 Disaster prevention facilities	0.0169
  			C9 Transportation Facilities	0.0506	D22 Road traffic	0.0127
  					D23 Public transport	0.0127
  					D24 Slow traffic	0.0127
  					D25 Parking facility	0.0127
  	B4 Achievement of Educational Goals	0.0860	C10 Awareness and Attitude	0.0287	D26 Awareness of protection	0.0143
  					D27 Respect and understanding	0.0143
  			C11 Knowledge and Skills	0.0573	D28 Knowledge of cultural heritage	0.0287
  					D29 Conservation skills of cultural heritage	0.0287
  	B5 Participation of Children in Activities	0.1541	C12 Willingness to Participate	0.1101	D30 Active participation	0.0550
  					D31 Participation interest	0.0550
  			C13 Event Organization	0.0440	D32 Participation norm	0.0220
  					D33 Comprehensiveness of participation	0.0220
  	B6 Sustainable Development	0.0883	C14 Publicity Planning	0.0505	D34 Scope of influence	0.0168
  					D35 Publicity channel	0.0168
  					D36 Publicity effect	0.0168
  			C15 Operation Management	0.0378	D37 Feedback mechanism	0.0189
  					D38 Updating mechanism	0.0189

  ): Completion of the evaluation of the space utilization of cultural heritage education involves three parts: the educational applicability of cultural heritage spaces [45,46]; the direct impact of educational activities on children [47,48]; and the project’s sustainability [49]. The evaluation was carried out on six levels: inheritance of historical context; improvement in environmental quality; completion of infrastructure; achievement of educational goals; participation of children in activities; and sustainable development. Through the comprehensive evaluation of these six levels, we can fully understand the effect of space utilization on cultural heritage education, and provide the basis and direction for future improvement.
• Evaluation Indicator Weight (

  Table 3. The Delphi method evaluation process.

  Steps	Work Content
  1. Distribution of a questionnaire on the weighting of indicators	Edit the questionnaire with the WeChat app “Questionnaire Star” and distribute it online.
  2. Expert evaluation of weights	Each expert completes the questionnaire separately, and the total of each indication is 100.
  3. Calculate the first-round results	The questionnaire responses are counted, and the average value for each weighted is computed.
  4. Report first-round results to experts	The expert adjusts their own weighting again based on the findings of the first set of questions.
  5. Provide feedback and consultation in rounds	Following the steps outlined above (2–4), after several rounds of results and adjustments, until each expert’s results no longer change, it is time to reach a basic consensus of expert opinion.

  ): Five experts engaged in related fields were invited to participate in the questionnaire stage, and the Delphi method was used to solicit opinions on the weight of the evaluation system. The total weights for this component of the evaluation were computed using the hierarchical analysis approach, which took the average of the weights for each indication.
• The final evaluation indicator includes six second-level, 15 third-level, and 38 fourth-level indicators (Table 2).

4. Results

4.1. Expert-Based Evaluation

The post-use evaluation of the historic blocks of Jianghan Road and Zhongshan Avenue in Wuhan was based on the evaluation of experts. Five relevant experts were invited, and the evaluation results were quantified by the Ritter scale (5 = very satisfied/very good; 1 = very dissatisfied/very poor). According to the fuzzy operation of the second-level indicator, combined with the weight vector of each indicator, the evaluation score of each indicator was calculated (

Table 4. Evaluation by experts.

General Object	Total Score	Second-Level Indicator	Evaluation Score	Third-Level Indicator	Evaluation Score
A The Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Space Utilization of Cultural Heritage in Children’s Education	3.417	B1 Inheritance of Historical Context	3.572	C1 Continuance of Layout and Texture	2.6
				C2 Rectification of Historical Elements	4.2
				C3 Inheritance of Historical Context	3.467
		B2 Improvement in Environmental Quality	4.002	C4 Street Facade	4.266
				C5 Floor Paving	4.667
				C6 Public Space	3.1
				C7 Building Space	4.2
		B3 Completion of Infrastructure	4.150	C8 Municipal Facilities	4.75
				C9 Transportation Facilities	3.35
		B4 Achievement of Educational Goals	3.233	C10 Awareness and Attitude	2.3
				C11 Knowledge and Skills	3.7
		B5 Participation of Children in Activities	2.157	C12 Willingness to Participate	2.1
				C13 Event Organization	2.3
		B6 Sustainable Development	3.445	C14 Publicity Planning	3.404
				C15 Operation Management	3.5

).

The evaluation results show that the expert satisfaction score is 3.471 points, which is classified as “general”, which is quite close to the critical value of “satisfactory” 3.5, indicating that these professionals have a reasonable degree of recognition of the space utilization in these areas. Among them, the scores of B2 (Improvement in Environmental Quality) and B3 (Completion of Infrastructure) are 4.002 and 4.150, respectively, indicating that the improvement work of the physical environment in this block has been highly evaluated by professionals, but the scores of B4 (Achievement of Educational Goals) and B5 (Participation of Children in Activities) are relatively low, which are 3.233 and 2.157, respectively. These results indicate that the district has a poor performance in children’s heritage education.

The evaluation results of second-level indicators show that the historic district has achieved remarkable results in the improvement in the physical environment, and has been positively evaluated by professionals. Specifically, the high performance of C2 Rectification of Historical Elements (4.2), C4 Street Facade (4.266), C5 Floor Paving (4.667), C7 Building Space (4.2 points), and C8 Municipal Facilities (4.75 points) highlights that the environmental quality has been significantly improved in the space utilization of cultural heritage in children’s heritage education activities. These improvements not only beautify the neighborhood environment, but also provide a safe, attractive, and educational space for children, and these improvements have been highly recognized by professionals in practical application.

The scores of C1 Continuance of Layout and Texture (2.6), C3 Inheritance of Historical Context (2.467), C6 Public Space (3.1), and C9 Transportation Facilities (3.35) reflect the negative evaluation in terms of historical pattern and cultural inheritance by the experts. In the process of block renovation, except for the protected buildings, almost all other buildings were demolished, destroying the original street texture. At the same time, although the revolutionary history of Hankou Concession is displayed, the display and inheritance of other local traditional cultures and folk art is still insufficient. In terms of other evaluation indicators, the score of road facilities is relatively low, mainly due to the intensity of commercial activities in the block, which has triggered a significant increase in pedestrian traffic. Especially during the peak period, traffic congestion has become a common problem. In addition, street space is frequently occupied by commercial activities and parked vehicles, making the already tense traffic situation even worse.

In the evaluation of the effect of children’s heritage education, the overall score shows certain deficiencies, especially in the aspects of C10 Awareness and Attitude (2.3), C12 Willingness to Participate (2.1), and C13 Event Organization (2.3). This highlights the limitations of historic districts in stimulating children’s awareness and attitude towards cultural heritage protection, and the failure to fully mobilize children’s enthusiasm. At the same time, due to the low frequency of children’s heritage education activities, the relatively simple form of activities and the limited coverage result in the lack of standardization and comprehensiveness of children’s participation, thus affecting their enthusiasm for participation. Relatively speaking, the score of C11 Knowledge and Skills (3.7) is relatively high, which indicates that the current education mode based on exhibitions in historic districts has a certain promotion effect on children’s knowledge and skills related to cultural heritage protection.

4.2. Children-Based Evaluation

In the evaluation indicator system mentioned above, the fourth level contains 38 detailed indicators. However, for children and their guardians, some indicators involve deeper expertise and are difficult to understand, and the differences between some indicators are subtle and can cause confusion. To simplify the evaluation process and make it easier to understand and operate, we combined and streamlined these indicators, and finally obtained 21 more intuitive evaluation indicators. In this process, this study retained the indicator structure of the target layer and the criterion layer to ensure the consistency and integrity of the core elements of the evaluation system and the evaluation objectives. Through this optimization, this study aims to make the evaluation process more efficient while ensuring the accuracy and practicality of the evaluation results.

A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed to children, and 183 valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective recovery rate of 91.5% (Appendix A). SPSS software (Version 27) was used to test the reliability of the obtained research data. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was 0.918 (>0.9), indicating that the reliability level of the research data was very high, which could be used for further data analysis. Given that children lacked sufficient cognitive ability to assess the significance of the indicators, unweighted direct satisfaction data of children were used in this study (

Table 5. Evaluation by children.

Third-Level Indicator	Forth-Level Indicator	Minimum	Maximum	Evaluation Score		Rank
C1 Continuance of Layout and Texture	D1 Continuance of historical layout and texture	2	5	4.2077	4.2077	2
C2 Rectification of Historical Elements	D2 Renovation of historical buildings and elements	3	5	4.3005	4.3005	1
C3 Inheritance of Historical Context	D3 Display of historical figures and events	2	5	3.7104	3.8087	14
	D4 Continuance of folk art	1	5	3.9071		9
C4 Street Facade	D5 Renovation of the street facade	3	5	4.2077	4.2077	3
C5 Floor Paving	D6 Renovation of floor paving	2	5	4.1201	4.1202	4
C6 Public Space	D7 Green plaza	1	5	3.5847	3.7213	17
	D8 Featured landscape	2	5	3.8579		10
C7 Building Space	D9 Built environment function	2	5	4.0765	4.0765	5
C8 Municipal Facilities	D10 Public facilities	2	5	3.6940	3.6940	15
C9 Transportation Facilities	D11 Road traffic	2	5	3.8306	3.8156	11
	D12 Public transport	1	5	3.4863		19
	D13 Slow traffic	2	5	4.0164		6
	D14 Parking facility	2	5	3.9290		8
C10 Awareness and Attitude	D15 Development of awareness and attitude	1	5	3.7432	3.7432	13
C11 Knowledge and Skills	D16 Development of knowledge and skills	1	5	3.9344	3.9344	7
C12 Willingness to Participate	D17 Active participation	1	5	3.2077	3.4973	21
	D18 Participation interest	2	5	3.7869		12
C13 Event Organization	D19 Event organization	1	5	3.2459	3.2459	20
C14 Publicity Planning	D20 Publicity effect	1	5	3.5301	3.5301	18
C15 Operation Management	D21 Management effect	1	5	3.6448	3.6448	16

). Based on the questionnaire statistics, the overall satisfaction score of the children was 3.81, which was classified as “moderately satisfied”. This result shows that participants have a high degree of recognition of the effects of cultural heritage education, indicating that the education of cultural heritage has achieved positive results in meeting the educational needs of children and enhancing their understanding of the value of cultural heritage.

The results of the questionnaire survey show that some indicators of children’s evaluation received higher scores, such as D2 Renovation of historical buildings and elements (4.30), D1 Continuance of historical layout and texture (4.21), D5 Renovation of the street facade (4.21), D6 Renovation of floor paving (4.12), and D9 Built environment function (4.08). These high scores reflect children’s positive recognition of the protection of historical elements and the effective use of environmental space in historic districts. However, some indicators scored relatively low, including D17 Active participation (3.21), D19 Event organization (3.25), D12 Public transport (3.49), D20 Publicity effect (3.53), and D7 Green plaza (3.58).

This is mostly consistent with the author’s field research, which found that for D17 (Active participation), the majority of children’s participation is not spontaneous, but rather requires enrollment and assistance by their guardians. As for D19 (Event organization) and D20 (Publicity effect), the frequency of educational activities in historical districts is low, and the publicity is limited, which affects the participation rate and popularity of these activities. In terms of D12 (Public transport), although there are convenient subway and bus services within the block, some important cultural heritage sites are not easily accessible due to the extensive area of the block. Finally, the low score of D7 (Green plaza) reflects children’s love and demand for green space, while the lack of green space in historic districts limits their activity space.

5. Discussion

This study adopts the comparative analysis method between expert-weighted satisfaction and children’s direct satisfaction, and integrates the in-depth insights of experts and children’s intuitive experience to reveal the differences in different groups’ perceptions of the space utilization of cultural heritage for heritage educational projects, and then provides multi-dimensional decision support for project optimization. In the evaluation results, the analysis found that experts and children, as the two main evaluation subjects, showed both similar and different characteristics in the evaluation results (Figure 4). This study use weighted indicators from specialists to deeply analyzes these commonalities and differences and provides a valuable reference for future research in this area (Figure 5).

Among the evaluation indicators with higher weight, that is, those considered to be more important, both evaluation subjects showed high satisfaction with C2 (Rectification of Historical Elements) and C4 (Street Facade) (Figure 6). This shows that the protection of historical buildings, the renovation of environmental elements, and the improvement in street facades have been valued and recognized by both sides, and these aspects have achieved remarkable results. However, satisfaction with C3 (Inheritance of Historical Context) is low, which suggests that in the subsequent work, we need to pay special attention to the display of historical figures and events and the inheritance of folk arts in order to make it a key area for optimization and improvement.

Among the less-weighted evaluation indicators, that is, those considered less important, the performance of C5 (Floor Paving) and C7 (Building Space) was generally considered satisfied by both evaluation subjects. Field research revealed that the paving in the historic district integrates local cultural elements and is embellished with historical maps, traditional patterns, and distinctive architectural drawings. The management generates a strong cultural environment at key architectural spaces based on traditional festival themes and cultural activities (Figure 7). The evaluation of C13 (Event Organization) and C14 (Publicity Planning) is low, indicating that although these aspects need to be improved, they can be a relatively low priority in the follow-up work. These findings provide a clear direction for us to balance resource allocation and improvement measures in future cultural heritage education activities.

In addition to the common characteristics mentioned above, the differences between the two evaluation subjects in the satisfaction evaluation should not be neglected, which is of great significance for us to deeply understand the influence of cultural heritage education and space utilization. Next, we will provide a detailed analysis of the differences in satisfaction ratings between experts and children and their guardians.

As an important evaluation indicator, C1 (Continuance of Layout and Texture) showed a significant difference in satisfaction evaluation between the two subjects. The root cause of this difference is that children and their guardians have a relatively limited understanding of the historical pattern and texture of historical blocks, especially the lack of intuitive experience of the original appearance of the blocks before the transformation. In addition, when evaluating blocks, they often focus on specific parts and scenes, and it is difficult to make a comprehensive judgment on macro evaluation indicators such as historical pattern texture. It is worth noting that the management group also has a deviation in the cognition of the historical pattern texture. In the communication with the Planning and Management Department, which is responsible for block renovation, the author found that only a few buildings were listed as protected objects (such as the former residences of celebrities). In their opinion, other ordinary buildings should be demolished to reduce the renovation cost and highlight the characteristics of key courtyards and streets. To some extent, this view reflects the neglect of the value of overall protection of the whole historic district.

As an important indicator, C12 (Willingness to Participate), is not satisfied in the evaluation of both evaluators, especially for experts. Professionals feel that children’s heritage education activities in historic districts have increased in recent years; however, the frequency of activities, as well as the content and form of activities, require further strengthening. Conversations with children and their guardians, as well as field research, revealed that the majority of cultural exhibition spaces lacked creativity and interactivity, resulting in a low interest in children’s engagement. Some locations dedicated solely to children, such as children’s libraries, have restricted carrying capacity and uncomfortable facilities, limiting children’s involvement opportunities (Figure 8). As a result of these factors, children’s willingness to participate in cultural heritage education activities has not been effectively stimulated.

As a core component of urban development, the importance of municipal facilities has been highly recognized by professionals, thus obtaining a high degree of satisfaction in their evaluation. However, the low level of satisfaction of children and their guardians with municipal facilities reflects several problems. To begin with, children and guardians pay more attention to facilities directly related to daily activities, such as playgrounds, schools, and medical facilities, and less attention to other municipal facilities. Next, children lack awareness of municipal facilities, and their satisfaction is more affected by factors such as whether the facilities are interesting and suitable for play. In addition, guardians are concerned about the safety and accessibility of municipal facilities, especially for guardians of young children, who are more concerned about whether their children can play and grow up in a safe environment (Figure 9).

The evaluation of experts is often based on their professional knowledge and experience of historical preservation, urban planning, and cultural inheritance, and their satisfaction evaluation focuses more on the maintenance of historical texture, the inheritance of cultural value, and the rationality of the overall planning of the block transformation. The evaluation of children and their guardians is more based on intuitive feelings and personal experience, and their focus is on the interaction and interest of educational activities, as well as the safety and comfort of the neighborhood environment. By comparing the evaluation of these two types of subjects, we can reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the space utilization of cultural heritage education in the implementation process, and then provide targeted improvement suggestions for future planning and management. This multi-angle evaluation and analysis helps us to fully grasp the actual effects of space utilization on cultural heritage education, ensure that it can better serve the educational needs of children, and promote the sustainable development of historic districts at the same time.

6. Conclusions

Children are seen as leaders and important stakeholders in the future protection of cultural heritage. Their participation is increasingly seen as an important prerequisite for successful social engagement. Children therefore play a crucial role in the sustainability of cultural heritage projects. The World Cultural Heritage Committee declares that the future of the world’s cultural heritage is in the hands of young people, who will be the decision-makers of the future [50]. The potential of cultural heritage education is reflected in its ability to provide children with real spaces and resources for learning experiences. In this regard, it is necessary to explore the effect in the post-utilization phase of cultural heritage education and form a systematic evaluation framework to ensure the effectiveness and educational effect of space utilization.

This study uses the Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) method to create a comprehensive evaluation index system. Through research and analysis of six key elements—continuation of historical lineage, improvement in environmental quality, improvement in infrastructure, achievement of educational goals, participation in children’s activities, and sustainable development—it was discovered that rational utilization of cultural heritage space significantly improves the educational experience and promotes cultural heritage transmission. This study provides scientific decision-making support for the most effective utilization of cultural heritage spaces to improve educational quality and the long-term development of cultural heritage.

The comparative analysis of the evaluation results of experts and children shows both similarities and differences and reveals the advantages and challenges in the implementation of cultural heritage education. While there are similarities in the evaluation of experts and children, such as recognition of the preservation of historic buildings and environmental remediation, there are also differences. Experts focus more on the professional perspective of historical protection and cultural inheritance, focusing on the authenticity of buildings, the preservation of historical value, and the educational significance of cultural heritage. Children pay more attention to the intuitive space experience, such as the interactivity of space facilities, the interest in space, accessibility, and safety. The evaluation results provide important reference information for the planning and management of the space utilization of cultural heritage and identify the key areas that need to be paid attention to and improved.

This study presents a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of space utilization in cultural heritage education programs, emphasizing the significance of developing a comprehensive evaluation system for planning and managing cultural heritage spaces. Based on the study findings, we propose the following recommendations: First, educational planners should develop and implement educational programs that make full use of the unique educational resources of cultural heritage; secondly, the incorporation of the views of children’s groups should be strengthened to ensure that their voices are reflected in the design of educational programs; at the same time, interdisciplinary collaboration should be encouraged to enrich the educational content and enhance the interactivity and interestingness of education; and furthermore, cultural heritage utilization should be carried out within a complete evaluation framework to ensure uniformity and comprehensiveness. We also propose that future research look at the adaptability of cultural heritage utilization in different cultural contexts, as well as the use of technology to improve the educational experience, both of which will enable cultural heritage to play a larger part in education.

This study adopts the comparative analysis method of expert weighted satisfaction and children’s direct satisfaction, which provides a new perspective to evaluate children’s satisfaction with space utilization of cultural heritage education projects, but it also has limitations. The main limitation is that children’s individualized cognition of the importance of evaluation indicators is not fully reflected. Therefore, future research should consider developing and applying weight allocation mechanisms appropriate to children’s understanding levels to more fully understand children’s satisfaction and preferences. Through qualitative research methods, children’s experiences were deeply analyzed and the active participation of children in the evaluation process was promoted to improve the representativeness and accuracy of the evaluation results and provide solid academic support for the systematic improvement in cultural heritage education.

This study focuses on the post-utilization phase of space utilization in cultural heritage education, which is a critical step. The whole process of space utilization should be the focus of future studies. This means that, in addition to the post-utilization phase, the various stages of cultural heritage space from planning and design to implementation should also be comprehensively considered to ensure the continuity and effectiveness of educational use. Through the evaluation of the whole process, we can understand the needs of children more comprehensively, optimize the utilization strategy of cultural heritage, and realize the sustainable utilization and development of cultural heritage.