Users’ Perceptions of Public Space Quality in Urban Waterfront Regeneration: A Case Study of the South Bank of the Qiantang River in Hangzhou, China

Abstract

Mega-event-led urban waterfront regeneration has played a key role in shaping public open spaces, particularly in newly developed areas within the Chinese context. However, public perceptions and their influence on the use of newly built open spaces created through mega-event-led regeneration have not been examined in existing research. To address this gap, this study establishes an integrated assessment framework to evaluate the quality of urban waterfront open spaces. A mixed methods approach was adopted, including direct observations and 770 online questionnaires collected between July and October 2024 at the South Bank of the Qiantang River (SBQR) in Hangzhou, China. Spatial analysis and Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) were employed to determine priority improvement areas that should inform future waterfront regeneration strategies. The results indicate that inclusiveness emerged as the most important factor for enhancing waterfront open space quality, while spatial aesthetics ranked the lowest. Among the sub-sub factors, elements related to improving water accessibility, enhancing natural surveillance, providing artificial shelters and diverse seating options, introducing distinctive water features, and shaping collective memory through digital technologies are the key priorities for improvement in the future urban waterfront regeneration policies. Finally, the study highlights that the intangible legacies of the Asian Games and the adaptive reuse of informal built heritage have the potential to reshape a distinctive new city image and collective memory, even in the absence of tangible and formally recognised heritage buildings.

1. Introduction

Urban waterfront regeneration can be understood as a continuous city-building activity that reshapes the public realm of urban waterfront open spaces in a more sustainable manner across social, ecological, economic, cultural and political dimensions [1,2]. Over the past six decades, waterfront regeneration policies have played a key role in shaping contemporary public places, shifting from a focus on industry, manufacturing and transportation to the creation of inclusive and mixed-use public realms globally [3]. These initiatives are characterised by the introduction of cultural flagships as new landmarks [4], the hosting of mega-events such as the Olympics, Expo, the Venice Biennale, the European Capital of Culture and local cultural festivals [5], the encouragement of community engagement in decision-making processes [6], and the adaptive reuse of urban heritage resources by embedding new functions and meanings into everyday life [7]. In other words, through the transformation of urban waterfront open spaces at the land-water interface, these agendas aim to attract new creative clusters, generate new urban identities, enrich people’s engagement with water in both active and passive ways, climb the urban hierarchy and finally trickle down the profits to all sectors of society [8].

In the Chinese context, mega-event-led urban regeneration (most notably the Expo and the Olympic Games) has acted as a key paradigm for the transformation of waterfront areas and has reshaped the public realm on waterfronts. In response to evolving human demands for new forms of urban waterfront open spaces, such mega-event led waterfront regeneration programmes are characterised by two core dimensions: strengthening the connection between mega-event and the urban heritage in public discourse [9] and the embedding of existing public infrastructure into everyday life [10]. On the one hand, mega-event-led urban regeneration have begun to alter the social and spatial qualities of urban waterfront open spaces, new forms of mega-event-built legacies have emerged. Even when these structures are not formally designated on official heritage lists, they extend beyond physical sports venues and museum clusters and have the potential to generate long-term public and symbolic value [11]. On the other hand, to improve the integration of urban waterfronts into everyday life, many linear ecological corridors have gradually been complemented by a series of publicly accessible Waterfront Public Service Pavilions that provide basic service facilities such as washrooms, lounges, storage lockers, and portable charging stations, particularly along the Huangpu River in Shanghai and the Qiantang River in Hangzhou [12]. These pavilions, conceived as a network of “waterfront community hub” and “shared living rooms”, are distributed at intervals of roughly 800 m to one kilometre. As key nodes along the urban waterfront, these service pavilions play a crucial role in facilitating community participation.

As newly built waterfront open spaces regenerated through mega-event-led, state-led approaches are still in the process of shaping urban memory, evaluating their success in achieving high socio-spatial quality requires attention not only to spatial design and ecological enhancements, but also to how people perceive, interpret and use these places in everyday life. Rapoport [13] highlights the perception of environmental quality as a key factor in shaping urban transformation. The interpretation of perceptions and attitudes is a process of encoding and decoding information comprising environmental evaluation, environmental cognition and direct sensory experience by given distinctive meanings. Such understanding of perceptions and attitudes provides deeper insight into how the physical environment affects behaviours, and how people, in turn, reshape the urban fabric and social relations. It is also essential for informing people-centred urban planning and mitigating the shortcomings of conventional top-down urban planning processes in the Chinese context.

However, many studies adopt generic public space quality assessment frameworks to evaluate urban waterfront open space quality, and such frameworks often lack the specificity required to refine variables in ways that evaluate the distinctive socio-spatial characteristics of waterfront environments. For example, Varna and Tiesdell [14] developed a “star model” to assess the publicness of public space on urban waterfront across five dimensions: ownership, control, civility, physical configuration and animation, it pays limited attention to users’ lived experience and tends to overlook waterfront-specific spatial attributes, such as flood protection, slow-mobility networks (walking, cycling and jogging routes), and opportunities for engaging with water [15]. Similarly, Mehta [16] proposed the Public Space Index Model from a user experience perspective, comprising five dimensions: inclusiveness, meaningful activities, safety, comfort, and pleasurability. However, this framework is structured into only two hierarchical levels, without an additional layer to further refine indicators (and associated variables) for more detailed measurement that fits the distinctive characteristics of urban waterfront open spaces.

Therefore, this study aims to establish an integrated urban waterfront open space quality assessment framework that integrates place making theory, key models assessing publicness and quality of public spaces, and sustainable urban waterfront design principles. It further demonstrates how users’ perceptions and attitudes can inform future waterfront regeneration policies and placemaking-based approach.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Placemaking Approach and Associated Assessment Frameworks

The emergence of the placemaking approach was driven by urban design scholars who, since the 1960s, have criticised the lack of attention given to public space in the planning of new towns and city centres [17,18]. Furthermore, Relph [19] emphasises the significance of place in everyday life and how it is manifested through shaping the identity of place. The identity of place he defines includes three key aspects: (1) the physical setting of the place; (2) activities, events and situations; and (3) the individual and collective meanings created by people’s everyday experiences and attitudes toward that place. Based on Relph’s theory, Montgomery [20] further identifies three key elements that comprise the sense of place, as seen in Figure 1. Such identification reveals that placemaking process has shifted from merely constructing a “space” focused on physical transformation to remaking a successful “place” by putting people and adding meaning at its core.

Since 1975, inspired by the placemaking approach, the Project for Public Spaces has been proposed as a community-based approach to address the privatisation of public space and enhance its quality for public use [21]. PPS identifies the following criteria for a successful public space (Figure 2) [22]:

• Access and linkages: a successful public place is easy to access, navigate and get through. It should have good connections to the surroundings, including visual links. Additionally, design elements include edges that promote permeability and flow, as the edges of a public space play a crucial role in ensuring accessibility.
• Comfort and image: a comfortable place is one where people feel at ease spending time and where a sense of comfort and a positive image are evoked. Creating a sense of comfort involves perceptions of safety, cleanliness, provision of good climatic conditions and the availability of seating.
• Uses and activities: something to do gives people a reason to come to a place, and to return. Key elements include an inviting and open design that allows for a seamless connection and flow between the public and private spaces, encouraging people to visit and stay in the area. The mixed-use function and diversity of activities foster an inclusive public realm.
• Sociability: refers to how to build a favourite public place that supports social interaction, such as meeting friends and neighbours and interacting with strangers. These are also the fundamental elements of a public space where people feel included, represented and welcomed in fully expressing themselves, which are also essential in shaping an inclusive public realm.

Overall, placemaking is theorised as an integrated environmental management tool that can boost physical, social and economic construct.

Drawing from placemaking theory rooted in a people-centred approach, Jan Gehl points out that high quality public spaces tend to deliver protection, comfort and enjoyment from the perspective of users [23]. He subsequently developed a tool based on 12 key criteria for evaluating good public space (Figure 3). The above indicators were selected based on people’s perceptions of the built environment and the hierarchy of human needs.

In addition, Carmona [24] proposed the concept of the place-shaping continuum, which identifies four key processes, as summarised in

Table 1. Four stages of place-shaping continuum (Adapted from Carmona, 2014 [24]).

Key Processes	Key Characteristics
Design process	Establishing a vision that reflects the ultimate purpose of public space design processes
Development process	Balancing public and private interests
Space in use process	Highlighting use gives meaning to space and decisively shapes the experience of it
Management process	Ensuring long-term investment in the public sector and soft controls a to manage undesirable behaviours and to design out certain activities.

.

In summary, the model of place-shaping continuum (Figure 4) presents a continuous model of urban design that refers to the “self-conscious development of four-dimensional project vision” [25] (p. 41). It helps to understand and explain the nature of urban evolution and city form, while also highlighting the role of designers in maximising benefits for different stakeholders. Anderson and Law [26] argue that the place-shaping continuum represents a circular process through which urban places are shaped by both knowing and unknowing actions within self-conscious and unselfconscious design practice. The term knowing relates to planning consultants, architects and urban designers who are self-consciously involved in the urban design process, while the term unknowing refers to virtually every other member of the community, including the business community, investors, public servants and householders, who shape the city unselfconsciously, without a deliberate urban design agenda [26]. This model serves to integrate key stakeholders in order to explain the functioning of the urban design process.

2.2. Key Strategies for the Successful Design and Planning of Urban Waterfront Development

Urban waterfront open spaces represent a range of complex spatial typologies at the intersection of land and water within the city. They have become a new frontier for mediating between local and global forces, as well as a battleground for negotiating public and private interests among various stakeholders [27]. In this sense, identifying the key strategies is essential for creation of an inclusive and social leisure urban waterfront environment. Gordon [25] suggests that creation of high publicness on urban waterfront where different users can come together and mix is important, which can be achieved by thinking small and planning in increments and coordinating public and private investments. He further emphasises the importance of enhancing public accessibility and connectivity, fostering users’ engagement with the water and integrating waterfronts both with their urban surroundings and with the water itself [28].

In addition, the 10 Principles for Sustainable Development of Urban Waterfront Areas were proposed at the Global Conference on Urban Future (URBAN 21) held in Berlin in July 2000 [29]. Such guidelines highlight the most vital elements in urban waterfront transformation in terms of social, environmental and economic sustainability. Based on Sepe’s [29] discussion, such principles include: (1) securing water quality and the environment; (2) recognising that waterfronts are an integral part of the existing urban fabric and the city; (3) preserving and reusing urban historical and cultural resources to give character and meaning; (4) encouraging mixed use by offering a diversity of cultural, commercial, and housing functions, both functionally and socially; (5) ensuring public access (physical, visual, and symbolic) as a prerequisite for various groups; (6) establishing public–private partnerships; (7) developing public participation; (8) recognising that waterfronts are long-term projects that ensure benefits for the whole city; (9) encouraging flexible and adaptable waterfront regeneration strategies and policies; and (10) acknowledging that the complex process of waterfront regeneration involves many disciplines in order to construct an international network of economically profitable waterfronts.

Overall, these waterfront design principles provide a foundation for establishing an integrated assessment framework for the quality of urban waterfront open spaces, particularly by highlighting the importance of establishing continuous waterfront walkways, integrating urban waterfront open spaces into their hinterlands, opportunities for direct human–water interaction, and the necessity of incorporating flood-control and hydrological management into their design process.

2.3. Establishing Integrated Urban Waterfront Open Space Quality Assessment Framework

Building on key models of public space quality and publicness synthesised in recent review studies (

Table 2. Key models for assessing publicness/public space quality.

Key Models	Key Factors	Model Interpretation and Limitations
Van Melik, Van Aalst, and Van Weesep’s Cobweb Model [30]	Secured public space Themed public space	This cobweb-based “fear–fantasy” model innovatively visualises degrees of publicness across six dimensions, but it does not consider cultural influences or physical configuration and is sensitive to axis ordering, which can affect interpretation.
Nemeth and Schmidt’s publicness assessment model [31]	Users Management Ownership	This model’s selection of dimensions is oriented towards assessing the public–private relationship and offers a simple axis-based tool that is particularly applicable to privately owned public spaces, but it cannot fully capture the complexity of the urban design process, particularly in terms of spatial layout.
Varna and Tiesdell’s Star Model of publicness [14]	Ownership Control Civility Physical configuration Animation	The axes of this model form a star-shaped diagram representing degrees of publicness. While a fully formed star indicates high publicness, the model does not incorporate any weighting method for individual indicators.
Langstraat and Van Melik’ OMAI model [32]	Ownership Management Accessibility Inclusiveness	This OMAI Model assesses publicness and can be used to compare different types of public space, including fully private, partly public, partly private, and fully public spaces; however, it gives limited attention to place attachment and users’ perceptions of spatial character.
Mehta’s five dimensions of public space [16]	Inclusiveness Pleasurability Meaningful activities Safety Comfort	This model is established based on users’ experiences, but subjective factors cannot be fully quantified through objective sub-factors.
Cho, Trivic & Nasution’s Integrated Urban Space Framework [33]	Accessibility (pedestrian) Connectivity Mobility means Legibility & edges Spatial aesthetics (variety) User comfort Safety Diversity &intensity of use Social activities Identity Management & regulations	This model conceptualises urban space quality through three interdependent components, including “HARDware” (design/physical configuration attributes), “SOFTware”(use and socio-perceptual values) and “ORGware” (operational and management values) [33] (p. 153). However, it lacks a sufficiently fine-grained set of indicators to assess attributes related to user comfort, safety, place identity, and other experiential dimensions.

), this study tends to select, re-screen and identify the most frequently cited factors in the assessment framework, including access and linkage, safety, comfort, spatial aesthetics, place identity and inclusiveness.

Sub-factors and sub-sub-factors were then developed through a structured two-stream literature synthesis. First, this study identifying shared attributes to both public space and waterfront open space were derived from established public space quality/publicness models. Second, waterfront-specific indicators, such as waterfront promenades, accessibility of water, and sea level rise adaptation measures were added based on the 10 Principles for the Sustainable Development of Urban Waterfront Areas and established theoretical frameworks on waterfront open-space vitality, particularly the assessment frameworks proposed by Liu et al. [34] and Chen et al. [35]. Potential overlaps among sub-factors were assessed, and highly similar items were removed to minimise redundancy and maintain relative independent across the selected indicators.

Overall, this research identifies six key factors, 21 sub-factors and 110 variables to evaluate the quality of urban waterfront open spaces based on users’ perspectives (Figure 5).

1.

Access and linkage: this factor can be defined as the extent to which users can reach and enter urban waterfront open spaces through well-integrated connections and physical access with their surrounding context [22,33]. This factor is further categorised into three sub-factors and 15 sub-sub factors in

Table 3. Assessment framework for access and linkage: factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors.

Factors	Sub-Factors	Sub-Sub-Factors
Access and linkage	Connectivity of waterfront path systems	A1 The connection between pedestrian bridges and key nodes along urban waterfront open spaces [36,37] A2 The connection between the waterfront promenade route and key nodes along urban waterfront open spaces [38] A3 The connection between the cycling route and key nodes along urban waterfront open spaces [39] A4 The connection between the vehicular route and key nodes along urban waterfront open spaces [37] A5 The connection between the waterborne transportation route and key nodes along urban waterfront open spaces [38]
	Continuity of waterfront path systems	A6 The continuity of waterfront promenade routes [2,36] A7 The continuity of cycling routes [40] A8 The continuity of vehicular routes [41] A9 The continuity of water transport routes [42]
	Physical accessibility of facilities on urban waterfronts	A10 Accessibility of water’s edge [39] A11 Accessibility of basic public service facilities (such as parking areas, toilets, public transit stops, waste bins, etc.) [32,43] A12 Accessibility of sport amenities (such as children’s playgrounds, outdoor skateboard parks, etc.) [44] A13 Accessibility of healthcare services [37,40] A14 Accessibility of cultural venues [34] A15 Accessibility of commercial amenities [45]

.

2.

Safety: Although a sense of safety is inherently linked to a sense of comfort, much research has sought to identify it as a distinct indicator and has cited it as a primary consideration in assessing the quality of urban waterfront public spaces [39]. This is because safety serves as a fundamental prerequisite for ensuring users’ well-being. When engaging in urban waterfront open spaces, people may face three major safety challenges: crime prevention, flood risk and traffic safety [22,23]. Its sub-factors and sub-sub-factors can be seen in

Table 4. Assessment framework for safety: factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors.

Factors	Sub-Factors	Sub-Sub-Factors
Safety	Protection against flooding risks	B1 Use of temporary flood defences [46] B2 Raising the plinths for buildings within creation of different elevations [47] B3 Use of traditional shoreline infrastructure [47] B4 The integration of waterfront greenways with flood control systems [35,47]
	Protection against traffic accidents	B5 Creation of traffic barrier zones [29] B6 Priority for pedestrians in mixed traffic [16] B7 Control of fast-moving vehicles [33]
	Protection against crime	B8 A legible street/spatial layout that avoids cul-de-sacs [16,22] B9 The appropriate number of surveillance cameras [30,32] B10 The appropriate number of public/private guards and police [48] B11 Sufficient artificial lighting quality after dark [16,30] B12 Provision of personalising decorations to strengthen territorial cues [22] B13 Good maintenance and cleanliness [16,32]

.

3.

Comfort: Making people comfortable in urban settings is crucial for successful urban waterfront open spaces. Carmona [22] points out that the length of time and people stay in a public place is a criterion of its comfort. As Gehl [23] notes, a sense of comfort encourages users to engage in a wide range of necessary, optional and social activities, such as walking, standing, sitting, observing, listening and communicating. It is acknowledged that the feeling of comfort can be influenced by environmental factors and physical configurations, including: the provision of sufficient and comfortable seating, the physical condition of route systems on urban waterfronts, as well as visual and climatic comfort. In this research, comfort is manifested into four sub-factors, as shown below in

Table 5. Assessment framework for comfort: factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors.

Factors	Sub-Factors	Sub-Sub-Factors
Comfort	Microclimatic comfortable	C1 Good air quality [39] C2 Appropriate water surface humidity [40] C3 Presence of temperature-regulating shade provided by natural vegetation (tree planting, shrubs, etc.) [15,35] C4 Provision of artificial shelter from the wind, rain and some sun [16]
	Seating comfortable	C5 A variety of formal and informal seating options [23,49] C6 An adequate number of sitting arrangements [16,23] C7 Low noise level during seating [16,23] C8 Good seating placement, preferably with good views [16,23,50] C9 Appropriate size of seating areas [16,23] C10 Arrangement of movable/flexible seats [51] C11 Materials for seats with insulating and water-repellent properties [39]
	Movement comfortable	C12 The material of the cycle route [51] C13 The appropriate cycle route width [35] C14 The material of the urban waterfront promenade route [39] C15 The surface condition of the cycle route [23,39] C16 The appropriate waterfront promenade route width [41] C17 The surface condition of the waterfront pedestrian route [37,51] C18 The surface condition of the vehicular route [37,51] C19 The appropriate vehicular route width [41] C20 The material of the vehicular route [41]
	Visual comfortable	C21 View of rich fauna [39] C22 View of clear visual axis [39] C23 View of clean water body [52,53] C24 View of rich flora [39] C25 View of good skyline [53] C26 View of clear information board and wayfinding [16,32] C27 Readability of digital transport schedule screens [32]

.

4.

Spatial aesthetics: Spatial aesthetics comprises spatial (volumetric) and aesthetic effects of the urban environment, emphasising aesthetic order and the intuitive capacity for aesthetic appreciation [22]. Within this framework, Gestalt psychologists argue that the built environment can achieve more significant order, coherence and harmony through the application of design principles, thereby improving its spatial-visual aesthetic qualities [22].

Table 6. Assessment framework for spatial aesthetics: factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors.

Factors	Sub-Factors	Sub-Sub-Factors
Spatial aesthetics	Proportions and scales	D1 The appropriate scale of leisure areas [37] D2 The appropriate scale of commercial areas [16] D3 The appropriate scale of cultural venues [51] D4 The appropriate scale of residential blocks [54] D5 The appropriate scale of office areas [54] D6 The appropriate ratio of waterfront street width to building height [16] D7 Sense of enclosure [16,33]
	Sensitivity to harmonic relationships	D8 Harmonic spatial hierarchy and organisation [22,33] D9 Coordination of building facade styles [33] D10 Articulation of historical and contemporary building styles [16]
	Appreciation of rhythm	D11 The rhythm of facades (ratio of solid to void in facades) above ground floor level [55] D12 The rhythm of colonnades in semi-public realms [33] D13 The rhythm of active frontages at the ground floor level [55]

shows the factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors in the dimension of spatial aesthetics.

5.

Place identity: Montgomery [20] suggests that place identity is rooted not only in the distinctiveness of the physical environment, but also in individuals’ internal psychological and social processes that construct cultural meaning and symbolic value. Such meaning and symbolism can be conceptualised as the social production of space, relating to how the physical form is perceived as memorable or forgettable, liked or disliked, meaningful or not [24]. In this study, place identity includes four sub-factors and sub-sub-factors, which can be seen in

Table 7. Assessment framework for place identity: factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors.

Factors	Sub-Factors	Sub-Sub-Factors
Place identity	Distinctiveness of architectural elements	E1 Distinctiveness of facades [33] E2 Distinctiveness of decorative elements [23] E3 Distinctiveness of balconies [23] E4 Distinctiveness of roofscapes [33] E5 Distinctiveness of building materials [56] E6 Distinctiveness of local structure of buildings [56] E7 Distinctiveness of outdoor elevated walkways [37]
	Distinctiveness of nature landscapes	E8 Distinctiveness of local plants [24] E9 Distinctiveness of shoreline forms [12,34] E10 Distinctiveness of water body shapes [12]
	Distinctiveness of street furniture	11 Distinctiveness of transit shelter [23] E12 Distinctiveness of banners/digital billboards [47] E13 Distinctiveness of bins [33] E14 Distinctiveness of lampposts [33] E15 Distinctiveness of fountains [33] E16 Distinctiveness of water-related design installations [29,57] E17 Distinctiveness of monuments [33] E18 Distinctiveness of benches [16,33] E19 Distinctiveness of artificial terraces leading towards water [16]
	Urban memory	E20 Place names [58] E21 Lifestyle transformation shaped by embodied personal memory [59] E22 Historic preservation of and adaptively re-using existing built form as an embodiment of collective memory [59] E23 Cultural and digital heritage interpretation and presentation [60]

.

6.

Inclusiveness: Mehta [16] suggests that an ideal inclusive public space should accommodate a wide range of activities and enable all social groups to access and utilise the space in support of their daily lives, despite a recognition that public spaces have never been entirely inclusive. Stevens [37] believes that an inclusive public space should be able to change and accommodate new activities in response to user demand. In this context, social cohesion is regarded as a fundamental component of societal stability and interdependence, representing shared loyalties, mutual support and a sense of solidarity and participation among members of a community. Schreiber and Carius [61] emphasise that social cohesion is one of the most important elements in achieving an inclusive city, highlighting the role of community building, cooperation and social relations among different stakeholders and ethnic groups. As urban waterfront open spaces continue to be redeveloped, they attract increasingly diverse new user groups. This trend has the potential to foster a more inclusive public realm. However, these newly created spaces can also lead to social exclusion, gentrification and spatial fragmentation driven by culture- and event-led regeneration and urban competition. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the inclusiveness of urban waterfront open spaces through four key sub-indicators and associated variables as seen in

Table 8. Assessment framework for inclusiveness: factors, sub-factors and sub-sub-factors.

Factors	Sub-Factors	Sub-Sub-Factors
Inclusiveness	Diverse users	F1 Variety in age range [32,54] F2 Variety in gender [32] F3 Mix of diverse community groups [16]
	Diverse activities	F4 Range of activities/behaviours (if granted a public licence) [32] F5 Land-use diversity [15]
	Equitable free use	F6 Equitable free use water feature for all social group [57] F7 Equitable free use sports ground along waterfronts [37] F8 Equitable free use Internet service (Wi-Fi) for all social groups [57] F9 Equitable free use children’s play areas on the urban waterside for all social groups [37] F10 Equitable free use accessible ramps on the urban waterside [33] F11 Equitable Free use of accessible lifts on the urban waterside [33] F12 Equitable access to community-led formal/seasonal events/activities [37] F13 Equitable free use of movable benches for all social groups [26,38] F14 24/7 operational availability of waterfront open spaces [21,30] F15 Equitable free use flexible spaces for all social groups [37,62]
	Social cohesion	F16 The length of social interaction [24,63] F17 Rational and transparent distribution of public funds [1] F18 An effective community engagement in transparent decision-making processes [1,63] F19 Cooperation of public and private partnership [1,64]

.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Study Area

As the southern hub of the Yangtze River Delta and a representative example of the polycentric spatial development pattern of Chinese cities [65], Hangzhou has been actively seeking sustainable regeneration strategies to stimulate economic and urban growth and to remain competitive with Shanghai. In recent years, driven by the 2022 Asian Games and guided by the vision of the “Embracing Qiantang Era” [66], the development of world-class urban waterfront open spaces along the Qiantang River (SBQR) as a continuous ecological corridor and waterfront promenade network has become a core urban regeneration initiative in Hangzhou’s newly developed riverside districts. Given the long linear spatial extent of the Qiantang River, the local government in 2023 designated a 3 km waterfront public space connectivity programme as the core development section along the South Bank of Qiantang River (SBQR) and planned a wide range of waterfront service pavilions at major nodes (Figure 6). This mega-event-led regeneration initiative aims to shape a continuous and coherent spatial sequence along the core section of SBQR, serving as key social spaces for and by the public.

Within this context, this study adopted a dual-scale case study to illustrate the case study design and the relationship between the core SBQR corridor (from Node A to Node B) and key node-scale nodes. At the macro (corridor) scale, the core SBQR waterfront section (from Node A to Node B) is treated as the overall study area and the unit of analysis for the online questionnaire survey, aiming to identify users’ overall perceptions towards urban waterfront open spaces along the core SBQR corridor as a whole. This is because the core SBQR corridor was conceived and delivered as an integrated waterfront public-space connectivity and regeneration programme and was jointly designed by the same architectural design studio (Original Design Studio of Tongji University Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) as a coherent public space system on the water’s edge.

At the micro (Node) scale, node A and node B can be further selected as two representative observation nodes for in-depth qualitative investigation. The selected two nodes (node A and node B) were identified through a preliminary core SBQR corridor-wide walk (grand tour) and selected based on four criteria: (1) high intensity and diversity of social activities observed on site; (2) diverse functions with representative typologies along the core SBQR; (3) comparability in development timing, delivery conditions and design governance, as both nodes were delivered under the same Asian Games-led urban waterfront regeneration program (regenerated in 2023 and completed in 2024) and were designed by the same team (Original Design Studio of Tongji University Architectural Design (Group) Co., Ltd.); and (4) newly built urban waterfront open spaces tend to facilitate community participation and promote social integration.

This shared delivery and design framework reconfigured previously monotonous riverfront walkways into new public places, ensuring a coherent design language along the corridor. Moreover, both Sanqiao Asian Games Park (Node A) and Shechao Square (Node B) share similar spatial characteristics within the core SBQR corridor (Figure 7 and Figure 8). First, both areas have become integral parts of the continuous riverfront walkway system along the SBQR, highlighting a mixed-use everyday urban landscape supported by super-seawall infrastructure. Secondly, waterfront public service pavilions have been introduced at both Nodes A and B as landmarks, aiming to encourage public participation and reshape new collective memories. Thirdly, both nodes have evolved from single-function riverfront walkway spaces into multifunctional social public places that serve a wider range of user groups.

Despite these shared spatial characteristics as integral parts of the continuous waterfront open space system along the core SBQR corridor, Node A and B differ in their primary functional and symbolic themes. On the one hand, Node A is situated in the vicinity of the Third Qianjiang Bridge and is oriented towards the Olympic Sports Center’s ‘Big Lotus’, located across Wentao Road to the south. As a result, its symbolic theme is more aligned with the Asian Games legacy when combining sport-oriented facilities (e.g., a skateboard park, sculpture), reinforcing the area’s new identity as a contemporary mega-event waterfront setting. On the other hand, in Node B, the sculpture emphasises Hangzhou’s traditional anti-tidal spirit, and the Hangzhou Low-Carbon Science and Technology Museum serves major civic and educational functions.

3.2. Mixed Method Design

This study adopts a mixed-methods research design (Figure 9) to examine how users’ perceptions and preferences influence the improvement of urban waterfront open space quality in newly developed zones shaped by mega-event-led regeneration in Hangzhou, China.

For the quantitative method, two sets of online questionnaires were distributed across the core SBQR study area (from zone A to zone B) to understand and capture the overall users’ perceptions of the newly built waterfront open space. Questionnaire Set 1 measured the perceived importance of each sub-sub factor based on establishing assessment framework, while Questionnaire Set 2 assessed satisfaction with the same set of variables. Respondents were instructed to reflect on the overall quality experience of the SBQR corridor as a whole rather than evaluating Node A and B separately.

The online questionnaire survey was conducted from June 2024 to October 2024, which involved four steps. First, an online questionnaire was created using Questionnaire Star (Wenjuanxing), a web-based online survey platform (accessed on 15 October 2024) that generates a live link for accessing the survey. Second, an email invitation was sent to representatives of communities along the core South bank of the Qiantang River in the Binjiang Development Zone. These potential participants (community representatives) were asked to forward a “call for participants” letter to others who had visited the selected areas. The letter outlined the purpose of the research, the estimated completion time, content form and an access link. The live link was also sent to our colleagues, friends and relatives who had previously visited the area via WeChat. Furthermore, on-site sharing access link as one key alternative recruitment channel to reduce potential sampling bias based on snowball-style dissemination. Prior to starting each questionnaire, an online informed-consent form was provided. Survey participants could proceed only after confirming their agreement with the consent statements. Online questionnaire results were stored electronically at the University of Nottingham in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) security legislation. Access to the data was restricted to the research team only. The anonymised dataset will be retained securely for seven years following potential publication, after which all data will be permanently deleted. Regarding research ethics, the research procedures adopted in this study were approved by the Research Committee of the University of Nottingham in 2024.

In terms of data collection for the online questionnaire survey, determining an appropriate sample size was the primary academic concern at the initial stage [67]. This study adopts Cochran’s [68] sample size formula to calculate the required sample size. The equation proposed by Cochran is shown below:

$$n_0= {\displaystyle \frac{Z^2\times P\times (1-P)}{E^2}}$$

where $n_0$ = initial sample size (for an infinite population); Z² = the area under the acceptance region in a normal distribution. It is commonly set at 1.96 (Z) for a 95% confidence level, as this confidence level is frequently used within the specified margin of error. P = estimated proportion of the population with the characteristic of interest (commonly set at 0.5 if unknown, as it maximises the required sample size); E = the preferred level of precision (researchers usually set the level of acceptable error at 5%). By carrying out the equation: N = 1.96² × 0.5 × (1 − 0.5)/(0.05)² = 384.16. Therefore, the required minimum sample size for this study was 384 respondents for each questionnaire.

The final questionnaires were distributed to end-users. Questionnaire Sets 1 and 2 contained the same sections: (1) demographic information (gender, age range, and current status); and (2) general questions on space-in-use variables (frequency of visits, number of visits, and duration of stay). The key difference was the rating task: Set 1 asked respondents to rate the importance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all important” to 5 = “very important”), whereas Set 2 asked respondents to rate their satisfaction using the same five-point scale (1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”). The two questionnaire sets were distributed to the same target population but completed by different respondent groups. Each participant completed only one version of the questionnaire, either the importance-based or the satisfaction-based survey, to avoid cognitive fatigue and response bias.

Finally, a total of 1355 respondents opened the survey, of whom 873 completed it, resulting in a response rate of 64.4%. Among these, 58 invalid responses from the importance-based questionnaire (Set 1) and 45 invalid responses from the satisfaction-based questionnaire (Set 2) were excluded based on quality control criteria (i.e., average completion time of less than one minute per item and invariant response patterns). After data cleaning, both datasets retained 385 valid responses, meeting the minimum required sample size. The average completion time across the two questionnaire sets ranged from approximately 20 to 45 min.

Regarding the qualitative method, direct field observation is a qualitative research method used to understand how people interact with and use a given space by systematically tracking their behaviours in time and space [69]. In this study, non-participation direct field observation was used to understand the local context and overall qualities of urban waterfront open spaces. Because of the large scale of the core SBQR study area, two stages of observations were carried out: grand-tour observations and mini-tour observations [70]. The grand tour observations were conducted to identify the high-intensity activity nodes along the core SBQR and their physical environments, such as architectural facades, urban furniture, active frontages, and natural landscapes. Such walk-through observations have been finished in July 2024. In this second phase, the two key nodes were further investigated based on the spatial analysis. This stage of direct observation was conducted on both weekdays (Mondays) and weekends during June and September 2024.

3.3. Data Analysis

3.3.1. Data Analysis of the Online Questionnaires Survey Through Importance—Performance Analysis (IPA) Based on Analysis of Means

In terms of data analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics (version 30.0) was employed to calculate reliability and validity based on the results of Cronbach’s Alpha value and the KMO values (Please see Appendix A for their results). This study of data analysis followed by ranking the mean score and mapping the Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) method that was first proposed by Martilla and James [71]. It is an effective method that graphically represents the relationship between importance and performance for a set of attributes and items in a plot and interprets the results of user experience questionnaires [72]. The level of perceived importance of each item influencing the quality of urban waterfront open spaces and the spaces’ performance level are displayed in an IPA plot (Figure 10) and are classified into four quadrants or categories [71].

• Quadrant 1 (Q1): Q1 is entitled “Keep up the good work”, which reflects both higher performance and higher importance for the attributes/items [68]. Therefore, attributes/items positioned in Q1 can be viewed as the major strengths and potential competitive advantages of the selected area. This would suggest there is no need to improve these attributes, and the current action strategies should be maintained.
• Quadrant 2 (Q2): Q2 is labelled “possible overkill”. Attributes/items in Q2 display a higher performance within a lower importance, which suggests focusing on them may waste limited resources.
• Quadrant 3 (Q3): Q3 referred to as “Low Priority”. Attributes/items positioned in Q3 have lower importance and lower performance, reflecting minor weaknesses in the qualities of urban waterfront open spaces.
• Quadrant 4 (Q4): Q4 is termed “Concentrate Here”. Attributes/items positioned in Q4 were characterised by higher importance with relatively lower performance, identifying the priority for improving the quality of urban waterfront open space.

In this study, the mean importance score and mean satisfaction (performance) score were calculated across all valid respondents for each sub-sub factor j.

$$I_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\sum }_{i=1}^n{I}_{ij}$$

$$P_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\sum }_{i=1}^n{P}_{ij}$$

After that, the IPA crosshairs were then defined using the grand means of importance and performance across all sub-sub factors at the same factor level.

$$\overline{I}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\sum }_{j=1}^m{I}_j$$

$$\overline{P}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\sum }_{j=1}^m{P}_j$$

where n is the number of respondents and m is the number of sub-sub factors. After that, the IPA crosshairs were then defined using the grand means of importance and performance across all sub-sub factors at the same factor level. Finally, each sub-sub factor was then assigned to one of the four quadrants based on its position relative to $\overline{I}$ and $\overline{P}$: (1) Concentrate here ($I_j\ge \overline{I}$, $P_j<\overline{P}$); (2) Keep up the good work ($I_j\ge \overline{I}$, $P_j\ge \overline{P}$); (3) Low priority ($I_j<\overline{I}$, $P_j<\overline{P}$); and (4) Possible overkill ($I_j<\overline{I}$, $P_j\ge \overline{P}$). IPA results were reported by listing and counting which sub-sub factors fall into each quadrant, rather than aggregating scores to higher-level factors.

3.3.2. Data Analysis of the Direct Observation

Direct observation data were analysed using a behaviour mapping approach to examine and compare the differences at the selected nodes. The mini-tour observations mainly include four aspects: (i) user characteristics (approximate age group and gender); (ii) daily patterns in relation to waterfront use, classified into necessary, optional, and social activities; (iii) activity duration (dwell time and activity length); and (iv) activity intensity and frequency (the average number of people). The recorded observations were subsequently translated into visual behaviour maps.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Online Questionnaire

A total of 770 participants completed both the importance-level and satisfaction-level online questionnaires at SBQR (see

Table 9. Demographic information at the SBQR corridor based on questionnaire survey.

Demographic Variables at SBQR	Number	Percentage % (n = 770)
Gender
Male	440	57.1
Female	316	41.0
Others	2	0.3
Prefer not to say	12	1.6
Age groups
18–24	103	13.4
25–39	290	37.7
40–59	220	28.6
60+	126	16.3
Prefer not to say	31	4.0
Classification of Participants
Residents surrounding SBQR	325	42.3
Visitors of SBQR	336	43.6
Designers who evolved design process at SBQR	41	5.3
Staff/managers responsible for management in SBQR	48	6.2
Others	20	2.6

). Male participants comprised a higher proportion than female, at 57.1% (n = 440) and 41.0% (n = 316) of the total sample, respectively. The dominant age group was 25–39 years old (37.7%), followed by those aged 40–59 (28.6%); participants aged 60 and above accounted for 16.3%, while those aged 18–24 made up 13.4% (approximately 4% of respondents chose not to disclose their age). The majority were visitors (43.6%) and residents (42.3%), with designers (5.3%) and managers (6.2%) comprising smaller portions of the sample.

Table 10. Space in use at the SBQR corridor based on questionnaire survey.

Space Use Variables at SBQR	Number	Percentage % (n = 770)
Visit frequency
Every day	60	7.8
Several times a week	154	20.0
Once a week	96	12.5
Several times a month	116	15.1
Once a month	32	4.2
Several times a year	143	18.6
Once a year	121	15.6
Occasionally	48	6.2
Number of visits
1–3 times	254	33
4–6 times	181	23.5
7–10 times	335	43.5
Dwell Time
<30 min	182	23.6
30–60 min	103	13.4
1–2 h	289	37.5
>2 h	196	25.5

illustrates the spatial use variables of participants at SBQR. The highest proportion of respondents reported visiting SBQR several times a week (20.0%), followed by those who visited several times a year (18.6%) and once a year (15.6%). In terms of cumulative visits up to the survey date, 43.5% of respondents reported visiting the park 7–10 times, while 33% reported 1–3 visits, indicating a mix of regular and occasional users. As for dwell time, 63% of participants reported staying in the urban waterfront open spaces for more than one hour.

In terms of the main motivations for visiting the SBQR, online questionnaire indicates that physical exercise accounts for the highest proportion (23.9%), followed by socialising (18.1%) and leisure (17.6%), whereas commuting (11.5%) and work/study (10.5%) represent smaller proportions (Figure 11).

Regarding activity patterns reported in the questionnaire, Figure 12 presents the frequency of activity selections (counts of selections in a multiple-response question where respondents could choose more than one option) by primary visit motivation. Overall, physical exercise and recreational activities were the most frequently selected, particularly enjoying natural scenery (565 selections) and walking (469 selections). By contrast, participation in cultural activities was relatively limited: visiting museums was selected 172 times and attending public art exhibitions 299 times. This pattern suggests that cultural venues along the SBQR are not yet well integrated into everyday routines. In addition, the SBQR functions as an important setting for social interaction, with high selection frequencies for meeting neighbours (418 selections) and meeting friends (413 selections). Leisure-oriented activities such as listening to music (415 selections) and dining at restaurants (416 selections) were also commonly reported.

Regarding the mean score of dimensions of urban waterfront open space quality, inclusiveness was among the top important dimensions, whereas spatial aesthetics ranked the lowest (Figure 13). Although the importance level of place identity ranks fifth, its mean score exceeds 3.80, suggesting that identity-related qualities are valued by respondents when evaluating newly developed waterfront open spaces, even where tangible heritage assets are limited.

In terms of mapping the IPA scatter plots, the evaluation of importance and satisfaction helps identify priorities for enhancing the quality of urban waterfront open spaces. Building upon this, future waterfront regeneration policies and design principles can be developed from the users’ perspective.

For access and linkage dimension, “physical accessibility of water’s edge” (A10), “physical accessibility of basic public service facilities” (A11), “physical accessibility of cultural venues” (A14) and “the effective connection between pedestrian bridges and key nodes” (A1) are all positioned in the high-importance but low-satisfaction quadrant (see Figure 14). This indicates urgent issues to prioritise that need to be resolved in the development of urban waterfront open spaces along the core section of SBQR.

For safety, the “provision of personalising decorations” (B12) as key natural surveillance, such as displaying pictures, plants, and small-scale public artworks, is a priority for improving the sense of safety and security. “Use of traditional shoreline infrastructure” (B3) and “Sufficient artificial lighting quality after dark” (B11) are also identified as priority areas for future waterfront design interventions.

In addition, traffic-related safety measures (B5, B6, B7), integrating blue–green infrastructure to improve climate-resilient flooding management (B2, B4), and “good maintenance and cleanliness” (B13) are positioned within the high-importance, high-satisfaction quadrant at both sites, indicating a high-performance level (Figure 15).

In terms of comfort, “provision of artificial shelter from wind, rain and sun” (C4), “A variety of formal and informal seating options” (C5), “low noise level during seating and resting” (C7), “materials for seats with insulating and water-repellent properties” (C11), and “view of clear visual axis” (C22) have been identified as key variables located within the high-importance but low-performance quadrant, indicating priority areas for future waterfront design interventions (Figure 16).

Regarding spatial aesthetic, “the appropriate scale of cultural venues” (D3), “the appropriate scale of residential blocks (D4) and “the rhythm of active frontages at the ground floor level” (D13) are the three key elements that need to be improved in advance (see Figure 17). The active frontage in this study refers to the creation of engaging interfaces through transparent display windows and visible indoor activities that enable social interaction at the boundary between the public realm of the waterfront street and the interior of the building [20]. As Kickert [73] points out, a well-designed active frontage should meet three key criteria: physical transparency (allowing passers-by to see into the premises), functional permeability (providing functional reasons for them to enter) and perceptual hospitality (creating a welcoming atmosphere that invites people into the premises). Such good active frontages should not appear sporadically on individual waterfront buildings but rather be co-ordinated to establish a coherent rhythm along the entire waterfront edge.

In terms of place identity, Figure 18 demonstrates a wider distribution of items within the priority improvement areas, such as the distinctiveness of “decorative elements” (E2), “outdoor elevated walkways” (E7), “transit shelters” (E11), “banners/digital billboards” (E12), “lampposts” (E14), “water features” (E15 and E16), “monuments” (E17), “historic preservation and the adaptive re-use of existing built form as an embodiment of collective memory” (E22), as well as “cultural and digital heritage interpretation and presentation” (E23). This indicates that the distinctive physical configuration of urban waterfront open spaces in the new district has not yet been closely associated with local cultural and symbolic meanings. In other words, the weak connection between people and place, due to the insufficient integration of iconic and symbolic elements within key nodes along the waterfront, has resulted in a diminished sense of place attachment. Furthermore, although newly developed zones may lack formally recognised architectural heritage and their existing buildings are not listed as official heritage sites, certain unofficial recognition to informal architectural heritage, especially those rooted in collective memory or local meaning to residents, should also be preserved and adaptively re-used that respond to contemporary human demands. This area also lacks digital technology to express complete historical narrative and historical events related to heritage and tidal-flood resistance in the public realm of urban waterfront.

Regarding inclusiveness, this area encounters some key inclusiveness-related challenges, including “variety in age” (F1), “the length of social interaction” (F16), and “public–private collaboration” (F19) (Figure 19). Furthermore, the improvement measures identified as priorities for case study include the free use of “movable benches” (F13) and the provision of “flexible spaces accessible to all social groups” (F15). The provision of movement street furniture and flexible spaces tends to accommodate diverse use and continual adjustment over time, thereby encouraging more social encounters [22]. In this context, future waterfront regeneration polices in this area tend to incorporate age-friendly design principles to tackle the current low-frequency use condition for older adults, including the provision of both vertical and horizontal barrier-free facilities, as well as the creation of soft edges of dynamic activity zones and static rest areas. Secondly, it is highly recommended to introduce a variety of temporary and seasonal activities, such as street performances, temporary thematic markets and small-scale cultural festivals, alongside the use of flexible street furniture and flexible spaces in the local waterfront community scale. To compensate for the limitations of top-down waterfront regeneration strategies, a bottom-up approach to micro-regeneration should be adopted to encourage users to actively participate in the decision-making process.

4.2. Results of Direct Observation

Direct observations were conducted at Node A on 1 July 2024 (Monday) and 31 August 2024 (Saturday), and at Node B on 2 July 2024 (Tuesday) and 24 August 2024 (Saturday). Each observation day covered three periods of time: 7:00–11:00, 13:30–15:00, and 17:00–22:00, thereby reflecting both weekday and weekend usage patterns. The direct observation results compare Node A and B in terms of user characteristics, activity types (necessary/optional/social), activity duration, and activity intensity (mean number of people observed).

Regarding user characteristics, direct observations indicate that the waterfront open spaces were used predominantly by Hangzhou residents, alongside a certain proportion of visitors from outside the city and presented a relatively balanced gender composition. However, in comparison with Node B, where younger and older users were more evenly represented, Node A tended to include fewer older adults and a higher share of young and middle-aged users, especially among those jogging, cycling and skateboarding. Observations indicate a higher presence of younger users (aged 25–39) on weekends, particularly families with young children cycling, at both sites compared with weekdays.

In terms of activity types, both nodes tend to support a wide range of necessary activities (e.g., passing through and work-related movement) and optional activities (e.g., strolling, scenic viewing, sitting and resting, and people-watching). Observations suggest that walking (strolling) constituted the dominant activity type at both sites. Furthermore, Node A supported more varied social activities than Node B. Beyond square dancing, which was recorded at both nodes, Node A also accommodated live-streamed singing, regular choral practice beneath the bridge and children’s play (Figure 20).

Considering activity duration (dwell time and activity length), in Node A, typical dwell time ranged from 30 min to 2 h depending on activity types. For example, children’s play commonly lasted from 30 min to 2 h and was most evident between 19:00 and 21:00. On weekends, it typically started earlier (often around 18:00) and frequently extended to 1 to 2 h. Skateboarding was associated with the longest observed durations (averaging over two hours) and occurred most frequently in the evening, particularly between 19:00 and 22:00. Notably, choral practice under the bridge was observed for approximately 1 h, occurring during two main periods: 09:00–10:00 and 19:00–20:00. This indicates a recurring daily routine at the community level rather than incidental use. In contrast to physical exercise-oriented activities (e.g., jogging and cycling), which typically lasted 1 to 2 h, some optional activities, such as scenic viewing and sitting/resting, tended to be shorter in Node B (approximately 30 min to 1.5 h) than in Node A.

In terms of activity intensity, Nodes A and B exhibited a comparable temporal pattern, with user numbers rising from around 17:30 and reaching an evening peak between 18:00 and 21:30. A significant weekday–weekend difference was observed, with substantially higher peak user counts on weekends. Mean peak user counts were calculated from instantaneous headcounts recorded at 30 min intervals during the evening peak period (18:00–21:30) across the two observation days at each node. At Node A, the average number of people during the evening peak was approximately 150 on weekdays and increased to around 195 on weekends (Figure 21). High intensity use in Node A was spatially concentrated around the waterfront public service pavilion and the skateboard park.

By contrast, at Node B, the mean number of people during the evening peak was approximately 70 on weekdays and 118 on weekends (Figure 22). Activity clustering was centred on the waterfront service pavilion and was dominated by walking/strolling and scenic viewing along the riverside promenade. Overall, evening-peak use was higher at Node A than at Node B.

5. Discussion

5.1. Integrating Waterfront Promenade Route Systems with Their Urban Surroundings to Encourage Both Active and Passive Engagement with the Water

Within the existing SBQR waterfront promenade connectivity programme, a primary objective was to identify breakpoints and enhance connectivity across fragmented waterfront plots [41]. This objective is consistent with respondents’ strong emphasis on promenade connectivity in the online questionnaire, reflected in the high importance ratings for A2 (connection between waterfront promenade routes and key nodes; m = 4.09) and A6 (continuity of waterfront promenade routes; m = 4.08).

Furthermore, the high importance rating for A10 (public accessibility of water; m = 4.05) aligns with the mega-event-led regeneration objective of reconnecting waterfront areas with their hinterland through the integration of open spaces, urban life and the river edge. Therefore, establishing three-level slow-mobility circulation system including walking, jogging, and cycling complemented by welcoming entrances and effective wayfinding signage along the core section of SBQR tend to become a key waterfront design principle to shape continuous waterfront pedestrian pathways in case study.

However, direct observations indicate that users are usually positioned as passive observers, with limited opportunities for multisensory waterfront experiences and water-related activities when walking along the waterfront pedestrian routes (Figure 23).

In addition, direct observations also reveal that physical fencing has been introduced at key access nodes and walking promenades as a measure to regulate and restrict motor-vehicle access (Figure 24). This highlights how the misalignment between space in use and long-term management strategies has become a key challenge to achieving improved continuity and connectivity following the completion and implementation of the urban waterfront connectivity programme.

Future mega-event-led waterfront regeneration policy could encourage both active and passive water engagement, such as establishing waterfront pedestrian bridges to improve new cross-water links and adding water platforms, are challenging to implement along the SBQR due to flooding risks and financial constraints. In this context, introducing temporary water-related design installations, developed in collaboration with local artists and integrated into existing daily routes, is key to enhancing water engagement and multisensory waterfront experiences [60].

5.2. Encouraging Soft Surveillance Rather than Artificial Surveillance

Based on the quantitative results, this study indicates that artificial surveillance, including provision of CCTV cameras and security personnel, has limited effectiveness in enhancing users’ sense of safety, reflected in the low importance ratings for both surveillance camera provision (m = 3.58) and the number of public/private guards and police (m = 3.38). Direct observation also reveals low intensity and frequency of activity levels in areas with high CCTV density.

By contrast, encouraging soft surveillance, such as the B12 (Provision of personalising decorations to strengthen territorial cues) received a higher importance rating (m = 4.01). This result aligns with Jacobs’ “eyes on the street” approach [74] and neighbourhood-level crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) [75], which highlights the role of a street’s “natural proprietors” in promoting pedestrian activity and movement to improve perceptions of safety. Consequently, in order to reducing opportunities for crime, the public realm should be self-policing rather than overly securitized. Such natural surveillance could be developed through combining physical design into spaces, for instance designing daily routes that encourage public use and ensuring that property within public spaces is oriented to promote visibility. Carmona [18] also recognised that the presence of policing and over-securitisation can make the public space perceptibly uncomfortable. Further regeneration strategies tend to highlight the importance of personalising decorative elements, through the presence of streetlights, private plantings or yard decorations as key natural surveillance in shaping a sense of safety [22].

5.3. Adding Primary and Secondary Seating with Shelters to Encourage Longer Stay and Social Encounter

According to the questionnaire results, C4 (the provision of artificial shelters) and C5 (the integration of formal and informal seating through primary and secondary seating options) recorded the lowest mean satisfaction score (3.44) among all indicators, despite being rated as highly important (mean importance > 4.0). Direct observations further indicate that shelter facilities and informal seating are insufficient in high-activity areas along the entire core SBQR corridor. In response, adding more secondary seating opportunities (e.g., steps, plinths/pedestals, low walls, rocks, and other ground-level edges) and moveable seating options to support flexible resting and lingering in future waterfront design. As Carmona et al. [22] argue, combining primary and secondary seating can effectively facilitate social interaction and spontaneous social activities.

5.4. The Low Level of Usage in Active Frontages

In the spatial aesthetics dimension, D1 (the provision of leisure areas at an appropriate scale) received the lowest satisfaction rating (mean satisfaction = 3.42). Satisfaction was also relatively low for D12 (the rhythm of colonnades in semi-public realms; mean satisfaction = 3.45) and D13 (the rhythm of active ground-floor frontages; mean satisfaction = 3.46). These results suggest that while the urban waterfront open space along the core SBQR has created a continuous, walkable circulation route, its spatial sequence and everyday leisure-related functions need to be further improved. In other words, due to the limitation of the linear spatial structure of core SBQR promenade, leisure functions are not sufficiently anchored by well-distributed nodes. Furthermore, direct observation shows that existing rhythm of active frontages at the ground floor mainly supports short-term and temporary activities due to the lack of retail and leisure-related facilities to support everyday life. Overall, future mega-event-led waterfront regeneration policy guidance should promote micro-scale regeneration by incorporating criteria for visual sequence and spatial rhythm (e.g., active-frontage continuity supported by mixed uses, the rhythm of colonnades and semi-public spaces, view corridors, and node legibility), and by strengthening an appropriate sense of enclosure to address the limitations of linear waterfront open spaces.

5.5. Relies on Water Feature and Mega-Event Legacies to Reshape the Image of City

Regarding the place identity dimension, the questionnaire results show that water feature-related attributes were prioritised by respondents: the uniqueness of fountains (E15; mean importance = 4.03) ranked first, followed by water-related design installations (E16; mean importance = 4.02). Direct observations also confirm that both key nodes lack memorable and distinctive water features, particularly along the waterfront pedestrian routes. This suggests that, for future mega-event-led waterfront regeneration, developing local character and distinctiveness should be anchored in site-specific water features rather than relying solely on building appearance. In addition, the place name (E20; mean importance = 4.02; mean satisfaction = 3.59) is an integral part of shaping collective memory in contexts where historical cultural heritage is not directly connected to newly built surroundings. Urban waterfront open spaces, as key vessels for triggering collective memory, should not focus solely on physical restorations; rather, they must be reconfigured as “geographies of memory” [76] (p. 8), thereby becoming essential nodes for enhancing public life and facilitating community participation.

Activities and historical events as reminders of collective memories along with intangible heritage values such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals and the knowledge and skills necessary for producing traditional crafts and cultural products, can also be interpreted and displayed through the application of digital technologies, such as 3D reconstruction and VR interaction [76]. These digital technologies aim to enrich users’ multisensory experiences, reshape collective memory and thus boost active, interactive engagement with intangible mega-event legacies.

In addition, cultural branding could be incorporated into current event-led regeneration agenda to create public value and collective memory on the urban waterfront for both residents and visitors. This form of cultural branding can be achieved through the organisation of seasonal cultural events and public art, while also encouraging cooperative governance among various stakeholders [77]. Such an approach also reflects the premise that the shaping of a sense of locality is socially produced, its meaning being derived from everyday experiences and perceptual interpretations. Additionally, the newly developed waterfront demonstrates that legacies of the Asian Games in Hangzhou have the potential to create a distinctive and new urban image, even without tangible heritage resources, supporting by their relatively high importance of sub-factor of urban memory (mean importance = 3.94).

5.6. Community Engagement and Relaxed Management Practices

In the inclusiveness dimension, the online questionnaire results indicate that the 24/7 operational availability of waterfront open spaces (F14) received the lowest mean satisfaction score (3.47). Combined with direct observations, this suggests that existing urban waterfront public service pavilions are not open 24/7. At Node A in particular, the waterfront service pavilion has been converted into a restaurant, which fails to meet some important day-to-day needs of residents and visitors, such as access to first-aid supplies, drinking water, or temporary storage. Unlike previous models of bottom-up urban governance in Western countries, the new round of urban waterfront regeneration in China has implemented the “Street Planner System” as a new participatory planning by using the newly created waterfront public service pavilion. Although this approach is still led by the local state, but features co-design and cooperation including residents, local community representatives and urban designers and planners from the local government. However, because the opening hours of these waterfront public service pavilions often do not align with local residents’ after-work schedules, opportunities for consultation are time-restricted, and public participation has therefore remained limited in practice.

Furthermore, the range of activities and behaviours permitted under relaxed management received a relatively high mean score (4.01), suggesting that users value a governance approach that accommodates both formal and temporary/informal activities. This aligns with the observation that security personnel often exercise “soft power”. When addressing restricted behaviours (e.g., dog walking or street performances continuing beyond 9:00 p.m.), they generally avoided outright coercion and instead relied on gentle reminders and negotiated guidance. Such softer management practices help regulate behaviour while maintaining a welcoming atmosphere, thereby enhancing inclusivity. Future sustainable urban waterfront regeneration policy should strengthen relaxed management practices while also formalising this approach through clear, time-based codes of conduct and training for security staff to support diverse everyday uses.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study investigated how the socio-spatial qualities of these spaces could be enhanced based on users’ perceptions and attitudes towards urban waterfront open space quality generated through mega-event-led regeneration in newly developed waterfront areas along the SBQR in Hangzhou. Unlike historical urban waterfront areas that embrace rich heritage resources, public places in newly built areas may lack tangible heritage buildings and the associated heritage conservation approaches. Nevertheless, post-Olympic legacies, whether in the form of intangible symbolic meanings or tangible cultural flagships and sports facilities, have the potential to facilitate placemaking and initiate a new narrative within a people-centred vision of waterfront regeneration.

In the case of urban waterfront open spaces along the SBQR in Hangzhou, the development approach remains situated within traditional top-down urban planning, while human needs and participatory planning have begun to emerge as initial experimental steps in waterfront placemaking practice. Among the variables, comfort-related elements for supporting people’s daily life, developing distinctive water features along the waterfront promenades, developing natural surveillance by appropriate design, facilitating more flexible and relaxed management practice and shaping collective memory through use of digital technologies received high importance ratings.

However, there are several key limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. First, the established assessment framework could be further refined through the application of factor analysis methods to determine an appropriate evaluation indicator system, such as Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In addition, some indicators could be adjusted or weighed to reflect different site contexts and local needs. Furthermore, the case study could be extended beyond the Chinese context to include international cases, allowing for comparisons between historical urban waterfront areas in old city centres and newly developed waterfront districts. Furthermore, as local residents, heritage experts, and developers may interpret and value informal heritage resources differently, a key area for future research is to clarify which forms of community participation in the regeneration of informal architectural heritage can effectively translate these urban memory and cultural symbols into a more widely perceived new city image.