Constructing a Flexible Framework of Spatial Planning and Design for Theme Parks ^†

Abstract

Theme parks have been constantly updated and modified to maintain their attractiveness while managing seasonality and fluctuating visitors. Flexibility must be considered in spatial planning, design, and operations to meet the evolving daily and seasonal requirements and ensure long-term adjustability. Nonetheless, the flexibility remains unclear due to variations in its interpretation among different authors, thus hindering its adoption. Its application in spatial planning and design is still limited, primarily seen in the housing sector. This research aims to establish a framework for integrating and evaluating flexibility in the planning and design of a theme park based on the diverse interpretations of flexibility in residential and urban sectors. These interpretations were distilled into three primary dimensions: function, access, and transformation.

1. Introduction

The development of a theme park requires decades to complete. It demands a substantial investment and a sizable area of land. Ongoing updates are necessary in the long run to sustain and enhance its appeal to visitors. Planners must deal with multiple factors to generate the initial design and devise a future development strategy in a constrained space [1]. Designers are required to forecast future scenarios without the assurance of implementation. Given the constrained space, theme parks have challenges such as fluctuations in the number of visitors. There are predetermined maximum numbers of visitors at any given moment without considering visitor satisfaction; although, the number of visitors fluctuates considerably with the season, day, and even hour [2,3]. A gradual or abrupt surge in tourism demand also poses a challenge. Fully developed theme parks must plan for expansion. While capacity management strategies such as the integration of a virtual queuing system and the provision of a waiting experience mitigate visitors’ perceptions of overcrowding and increase the capacity temporarily, expansion and modifications with a spatial arrangement are still necessary [2].

A flexible design strategy is demanded for theme parks as a solution for daily operations and the fluctuation in the number of visitors. Thus, strategic planning is needed to respond to the potential increase in demand. A design with flexibility enhances operational efficiency and prolongs the period of service due to its ability to adapt to changes at a reduced expense for sustainability [4]. Nevertheless, flexibility is ambiguous and devoid of a precise definition, hindering its adoption [5]. The existence of multiple and overlapping definitions for flexibility-related terms (e.g., “adaptability”, “flexibility”, and “polyvalence”) renders a universally accepted vocabulary nearly unattainable [6]. Moreover, flexibility costs are high due to its application redundant to designers who disregard its long-term financial benefits [7].

In light of this, we compiled concepts of flexibility and organized them into a framework to assess the flexibility of theme parks and provide solutions for their problem using the overlapping theory. We proposed suggestions on how to implement flexibility into the design of theme parks.

2. Research Method

2.1. Theme Park

A theme park is a confined space with a controlled entrance for recreation. It possesses a thematic identity and features for attractions or entertainment, consumption facilities, merchandise, and, occasionally, performative labor. According to the scale, a theme park is classified as a niche or indoor park, a regional and urban park, or a destination park. The term “theme park” ranges from theme cities, conventional theme parks, themed amusement parks, and amusement parks in general, all of which are defined by their characteristics [8]. The establishment of a theme park needs considerable capital for land and equipment. To ensure that the parks continue to attract a sufficient number of visitors, especially returning ones, new investment is required to finance ongoing development and improvement [9]. Similar to other tourism businesses, seasonality is a significant challenge. Temporal variations due to climate, season, and vacations affect the operation of theme parks [9].

2.2. Flexibility

The concept of flexibility is often discussed in the context of housing. The broad definition of flexible housing is a house that can adapt to shifting needs (such as user, need, and technological change) and patterns (such as demographic, economic, and environmental change). It pertains to housing that responds to the volatility of habitation [7]. There are three issues in that flexibility: system, environment, and user. Flexibility is defined as the capacity of a system (house) to change according to users’ needs, responding to the physical and cultural environment, and user changes [10]. The term “flexibility” encompasses a range of design decisions to ease rigid functionality [6,7]. This concept flourishes with the emergence of modern architecture characterized by limited and narrow space, the industrialization of housing, and the trend toward user participation.

Flexibility can be acquired through either soft or hard methods. Soft methods grant the user control and indeterminacy while necessitating minimal flexibility-led design, whereas hard methods impose flexibility-specific technologies and limitations on how flexibility can be attained. Hard methods are favored by architects because they maintain large control over the architecture and guide the user toward “good” design in their scenarios. This tendency brings the belief that flexibility necessitates a substantial amount of initial investment and that the flexibility provided by flexible design is not substantial. The achievement of a flexible design is significantly predicated on the collaboration of multiple stakeholders throughout the procedure, which explains why rigid approaches often prove ineffective in practice [6,7]. Conversely, the alternative perspective regards flexibility as a mere space or skeleton. The idea of “overprovision first, division later”, which is one of the most prevailing soft methods, transforms into irresponsible flexibility-themed planning, providing inadequate building systems and resulting in empty yet inflexible spaces [6,11]. Therefore, a balance between what and how flexibility is provided to a spatial design and planning is crucial.

To understand the essence and different methodologies or approaches of flexibility, its advantages need to be understood, including sustainability. Flexibility, in general, increases the users’ long-term appreciation for architecture by meeting users’ evolving needs and removing elements that make a building obsolete. In the short term, adaptable housing is efficient. Flexible and adaptable structures optimize space utilization, increase lifespan, and improve performance. Consequently, flexibility reduces the construction’s material and energy consumption [4,12,13].

2.3. Concepts

We reviewed the literature containing the terms ‘flexibility’ and ‘adaptability’. We focused on housing and urban spaces with the spatial planning and design of the theme park. Publications containing flexibility strategies for the theme park and its spatial planning were analyzed to determine the key concept. Fifteen appropriate publications were selected: twelve about housing and three about urban space. The key concept and a list of publications are presented in

Table 1. Reviewed Paper and Key Concepts.

Year	Source	Title	Realm	Key Concept(s)
2000	[14]	Designing Flexibility into Airport Passenger Buildings: The Benefits of Multifunctional Space and Facilities	Housing	K1. Spare Capacity; K2. Shared multifunction space; K3. Expandable non-fixed capacity; K4. Adaptability; K5. Development expandability
2001	[15]	Design strategies to increase building flexibility	Housing	K6. System interaction and component; K7. Access, layout, flow, and area for a system; K8. Phased installation and demolition
2001	[4]	Assessing the Adaptability of Buildings	Housing	K9. Convertibility; K10. Expandability; K11. Independence; K12. Upgradability; K13. Lifetime compatibility; K14. Record keeping
2005	[7]	Flexible housing: opportunities and limits	Urban Space	K15. Adaptable; K16. Flexible
2006	[16]	Frame and Generic Space	Housing	K17. Polyvalence; K18. Alterability; K19. Extend-ability; K20. Frame and generic space
2008	[6]	Design for flexibility	Housing	K21. Distribution of design control
2012	[17]	A method for evaluating the degree of housing unit flexibility in multi-family housing.	Housing	K22. Orientation of housing unit; K23. Geometry of plan; K24. Structure and size of the flat; K25. Number and disposition of the entrance; K26. Position of technical services; K27. Building structure; K28. Achieved degree of freedom of interior space; K29. Potential for multifunctional use of space; K30. Changes in the number and size of the rooms
2013	[11]	On Flexibility in Architecture focused on the Contradiction in Designing Flexible Space and Its Design Proposition.	Urban Space	K31. Multifunction; K32. Polyvalence; K33. Contextual relations
2014	[10]	Flexible Spatial Configuration in Traditional Houses, The Case of Sabzevar	Housing	K34. Nested space; K35. Multiple entrances for each space; K36. Selective connectability and disconnectability; K37. Multifunctionality
2015	[18]	Flexible House Attributes as Perceived by The End-Users	Housing	K38. Demountable Partitions; K39. Flexible Furniture
2015	[19]	Flexible Housing: The Role of Spatial Organization in Achieving Functional Efficiency	Housing	K40. Multifunction during different times; K41. Interrelated spatial organization
2016	[20]	Explaining the Concept of Flexibility in Urban Spaces	Urban Space	K42. Permeability; K43. Versatility; K44. Legibility; K45. Multifunction; K46. Convertibility; K47. Expansibility; K48. Positive outdoor space; K49. Spaces with multimodal behavior pattern; K50. Multifunctional structures; K51. Active frontage; K52. Fine amenities
2017	[21]	A Review of Flexibility and Adaptability in Housing Design	Housing	K53. Visitability; K54. Convertibility, Neutral-functionality, and Multifunctionality; K55. Combinability; K56. Connectability and divisibility/partitionability; K57. Upgradability and Refittability; K58. Design for disassembly/demountability/dismantlability; K59. Lifetime compatibility; K60. Durability; K61. Disaggregatability/recyclability; K62. Transferability; K63. Transformability, rearrange-ability, redesign-ability; K64. Expandability, Expansion rejection, scalability
2019	[22]	Ideas or reality? Flexible space—flexible people?	Housing	K65. Open Space; K66. Standardisation; K67. Excess capacity
2022	[23]	What Affects the Use Flexibility of Pocket Parks? Evidence from Nanjing, China	Housing	K68. Paved diverse-functioned Ground; K69. Boundaries and opening balance

.

3. Discussion

Sixty-nine key concepts were extracted from the publications. These concepts overlapped meanings that differed between authors. They were grouped following the focus group discussions. The focus group consisted of architects and urban designers. They rearranged the key concepts with similar terms and categorized them into groups with similar ideas. These groups were examined using essence concepts [14]: “operational”, denoting daily implementation of flexibility strategies, and “strategic”, denoting a flexibility strategy for planning and/or future development.

Eight main strategies were derived from the concepts using the “generic flexibility principles” [13] and the “type of change in-built facility” [15]. The eight main strategies are as follows.

• Space: Greater flexibility is achieved by incorporating less specified spaces and greater usability freedom;
• Typical Plan: Flexibility is accomplished through the utilization of typical space, which enables the provision of room options in anticipation of future scenarios;
• Design for Adaptation: Flexibility is achieved by providing a space with the ability to change its function through internal arrangement;
• Function: The same ideas are shared in the three preceding strategies: space, typical plan, and design for adaptation, adhering to the principle that space functions are upgradable, supplementary, and modifiable;
• Service: The intelligent disposition of service facilitates easier upgrades and modifications;
• Construction: Flexibility is provided by creating structures that allow easy access for intervention and maintenance;
• Flows: Changeable environment, people, and things are provided;
• Layers: The segregation between the building component layers—skin, structure, and so forth—enables flexibility, promoting easier modification of components within the spaces;
• Capacity: A space is subject to varying conditions or loads, or its size may be transformed.

The concepts were grouped into three dimensions: function, access, and transformation (

Table 2. Concept grouping.

Key Concepts	Grouped Essence Concept(s)	Timing	Generic Flexibility Principles [13]	Type of Change in Built Facility [15]	Dimension
			Main Strategy
K2, K29, K37, K40, K43, K45, K49, K65, K68	Multifunction shared open space	Daily	Space	Function	Function
K4, K15, K17, K31, K32, K34, K50	Polyvalence	Strategic
K23, K24	Geometry of plan	Strategic	Typical plan
K54, K66	Standard convertibility	Strategic
K55	Component variety	Strategic
K9, K28, K30	Alterability	Daily	Design for adaptation
K16, K18, K46, K63		Strategic
K7, K26	Position and access of technical services	Strategic	Service	-	Access
K22	Orientation of space	Strategic
K13, K21, K59, K60	Design control over time	Strategic	Construction
K6, K12, K14, K57	Upgradability and Refittability	Strategic
K25, K35, K42, K44, K53	Multiple permeable entrances	Daily	-	Flows
K36, K38, K56, K69	Selective connectability and disconnectability	Daily
K33, K41, K48, K51	Interrelated spatial organization connection	Daily
K39, K52	Demountable, movable	Daily	Layers	-	Transformation
K8, K58, K61, K62	Layering of frame and generic space	Strategic
K11, K20, K27	Spare capacity	Strategic
K67		Daily	-	Capacity
K1, K3, K5	Expandability	Strategic
K10, K19, K47, K64		Strategic

).

4. Conclusions

In addition to ensuring long-term adaptability, theme parks require a high degree of flexibility to accommodate daily and seasonal demands that are varying. Thus, it is necessary to apply flexibility in space planning and the design of theme parks. Nevertheless, flexibility has been applied within the housing industry with ambiguities and a lack of clarity, leading to the misunderstanding of significance and advantages. Of the fifteen selected publications containing flexibility concepts, twelve pertained to residential domains and three to urban domains. Following the review, a framework for flexibility was developed, consisting of 69 key concepts that were then reduced to 18 essential concepts in three dimensions: function, access, and transformation. The framework was used to assess flexibility in theme park design and planning. To use the framework effectively, experts for theme parks rearranged the concepts. Subsequent investigations are needed to improve the framework and expand the application of flexibility in the spatial planning and design of the theme park. Modifications and additions are needed for the framework with more literature reviews. The importance-performance analysis and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) techniques can be used to improve the framework.