Page 139 - JCAU-7-3

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Culture & play in Xi’an’s parks: 7Cs evaluation

Table 5. Summary of parent group thematic coding
7Cs Initial coding keywords Subtheme Theme
dimension
Character Weak cultural perception, insufficient historical display appeal, Fun-oriented cultural design Enhancing the integration
poor relevance of decorative design to children of culture and play spaces
Lack of child-centric cultural representation, overly functional Child-friendly cultural expression for greater engagement
design of facilities
Imbalance between static and interactive content, thin Dynamic cultural content design
historical storytelling
Context Poor integration of facilities with environment, overly Integration of facilities with natural Coordination and
modernized design, greenery obstructing facilities landscape functionality of
Lack of site appeal, indirect cultural expression Unity of site atmosphere and cultural environmental design
elements
Poor material and color design, low landscape layering Harmonious visual elements
Connectivity Uneven distribution of play areas, insufficient path signage, Connection between paths and functional Optimizing accessibility
lack of entrance guidance areas and usability
Disorganized flow logic, weak connection between facilities Optimization of user pathways
Simple signage, poor initial user experience User-friendly park navigation design
Change Monotonous activity types, lack of facilities for different age Adaptability of facility design Enhancing flexibility and
groups, insufficient adaptability multifunctionality of
Seasonal usage limitations, lack of dynamic activities Seasonal and dynamic design facilities
Single-use scenarios, unmet diverse needs Diversity in functional design
Chance Limited free activity spaces, insufficient exploratory activities, Support for free play and exploration Enhancing exploratory
single interaction modes activities and dynamic
Lack of cooperative activities, insufficient group interaction Social interaction facilities and site design interactive facilities
facilities
Weak integration of cultural display and interaction design Dynamic integration of culture and play
Clarity Complex signage system, insufficient facility usage guidance Optimization of navigation systems Enhancing clarity in
Ambiguity in facility use, poor experience for first-time users Intuitive facility usage guidance functional layouts
Vague zoning, weak functional layout logic Rationality in functional zoning
Challenge Lack of challenging facilities for older children, monotonous Suitability of challenge facilities Providing multi-level
activities challenges and cognitive
Insufficient intellectual and physical activity design, lack of Diversity and layering in challenge games
challenging content activities
Overemphasis on safety facilities, lack of adventurous elements Balance between challenge and safety

the understanding of design performance, particularly in 3.68, and 3.70, respectively. These closely aligned scores
areas requiring qualitative assessment. suggest that all three parks share strengths in cultural
expression and environmental integration.
3. Results
Among the evaluated dimensions, Character and
3.1. Overall evaluation performance Context received the highest scores, averaging 4.2 and
The quantitative analysis based on the 7Cs framework 4.1, respectively. This finding indicates that the parks
reveals that the overall performance of children’s play effectively incorporate cultural features while maintaining
spaces in Xi’an’s three heritage parks is relatively balanced, harmony with their surroundings. Daming Palace National
though notable differences exist across specific dimensions. Heritage Park, in particular, stands out for its recreation
Figure 5 presents the mean ratings for each category, with of Tang dynasty cultural elements and immersive spatial
95% confidence intervals displayed. The average scores atmosphere.
for Qujiang Pool Heritage Park, Daming Palace National However, the Challenge and Chance dimensions
Heritage Park, and Tang City Wall Heritage Park were 3.78, received relatively lower scores, at 3.1 and 3.2, respectively,

Volume 7 Issue 3 (2025) 8 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.8296