Importance analysis of evaluation items in memorial space planning: enhancing tourism experiences through phenomenological spatial perspectives

ABSTRACT

This study introduces a novel spatial planning evaluation method that employs a phenomenological spatial perspective to enhance the dark tourism experience in memorial spaces. The phenomenological view recognizes space as a comprehensive entity and emphasizes the impact of perception and behavior on the experiential aspect of space. First, a theoretical exploration was conducted to establish the connections among memorial spaces, dark tourism, and phenomenology. Subsequently, a set of spatial evaluation elements and detailed indicators were developed. Finally, the analytic hierarchy process was applied to determine each hierarchical element’s importance and assign weights to the evaluation indicators. The findings highlight the significance of perceptual and behavioral factors in the dark tourism experience within memorial spaces. Thus, these elements should be considered when designing new projects or undertaking functional renovations in such spaces.

KEYWORDS:

• Memorial spaces
• planning project evaluation
• phenomenological spatial perspective
• analytic hierarchy process
• dark tourism experience

1. Introduction

The tourism landscape in the 21st century has undergone a critical shift, characterized by a move away from traditional group tours toward personalized individual travel, from well-known destinations to remote and unexplored locations, and from seeking happiness to seeking self-reflection (Nhlabathi, 2017, Stone, 2017). The shift from emphasizing tourism as a source of joy and pleasure to a more profound and spiritually fulfilling endeavor is intricately tied to the pervasive nature of modern society in our daily lives (Parsons et al., 2019). As a tourism mode that goes beyond individual desires and goals, the experience of dark tourism in memorial spaces has recently become a major issue requiring active research (Park & Lee, 2019). Dark tourism refers to the tourism of tragic events or incidents of historical and societal significance that continue to impact our lives, emotions, and memories (Light, 2017). These events may include death, disasters, and catastrophes, and they are interpreted through various forms, such as sites, museums, and parks, allowing for a multi-dimensional experience through which to reinterpret their significance and experience their inherent value (Liu et al. 2022).

Scholars have long discussed dark tourism and generally agreed that memorial spaces play a central role. Hence, it is crucial to avoid overlooking the spiritual needs that arise within memorial spaces (Iliev 2021). Whether considering urban revitalization (Fonseca, Seabra, and Silva 2016) or the development of people’s spiritual needs, traditional memorial spaces require re-examining (Krzyżanowska, 2016). Many related studies have only classified and investigated the basic functional elements of architecture, landscape, and facilities without focusing on the actual experience of the visitors (Attwa, Refaat, and Kandil 2022, Tseng, 2015). This research has led to the memorial space becoming a stereotyped product, losing its emotional and locational qualities (Martini & Buda, 2020, Sigala & Steriopoulos, 2021). The emotional and experiential demands placed on memorial spaces by social development encompass multiple domains (Yan et al., 2016, Zheng et al. 2020). Merely focusing on the physiological and psychological aspects to classify the functional completeness, display form, and visual symbols (Golańska 2015, Stone, 2006, Attwa, Refaat, and Kandil 2022, Sumartojo, 2016) is insufficient to establish a systematic connection with the experience of memorial spaces.

Moreover, the overlapping of spatial elements in terms of the connotation and extension of the physiological and psychological dimensions cannot be clearly distinguished in an absolute sense. Thus, the phenomenological perspective on space provides a good entry point for understanding the experience of memorial spaces, revealing the relationship between the body, mourning, and space (Won et al. 2020). The experiences of memory, mourning, and healing are deepened through the tourists’ embodiment and engagement with the memorial objects, thereby enhancing their perception of place and time (Kim and Moon, 2014). However, from the perspective of spatial planning and project evaluation, previous studies have failed to propose a systematic and quantifiable evaluation method for renovating existing memorial spaces and developing new ones, which could provide guidance and help evaluate planning and design proposals.

This study examined space from the perspective of visitors’ perceptions and established a quantitative evaluation method that emphasizes perception and experience by utilizing the elements of a phenomenological perspective on space. The study addressed several key issues. First, the study addressed the need to enhance the modern spiritual functions of traditional memorial spaces in the context of an information-driven society and the widespread dissemination of commemoration through various channels. It recommended focusing on spatial evaluation and optimization to strengthen the physical experience to address challenges such as memory loss and inadequate spiritual cohesion in urban development. Second, in the context of the prevalence of dark tourism nationally and globally and the need to update and expand memorial spaces, a solution focusing on the detail-oriented design and seamless integration of new and old architecture, with spatial narrative experience as the direction for consideration, was proposed. Third, as memorial spaces become increasingly diverse in form and commemorative groups become more inclusive, a human-centered approach was suggested for constructing future memorial spaces and related spiritual spaces, emphasizing individual experiences and integrating commemoration into daily life.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. The construction of the relationship between memorial spaces and phenomenology in dark tourism

Currently, there are still many deficiencies in the dark tourism experience in memorial spaces, and scholars have put forward several viewpoints. For example, the tangible elements of multi-layered memory, although appearing in modern memorial spaces, have not been systematically organized. Furthermore, the elements of commemorative, transitional, and symbolic memorials have not been systematically utilized (Jo, 2019). Additionally, in the era of post-memory (a generation that has not personally experienced wars or significant historical events), memorial spaces, as a medium for transmitting memories to contemporary society, do not comprehensively consider the spatial characteristics and experiential features of memorial museums (Bae 2021). Similarly, modern commemorative architecture is required to cover indicators such as shape or size (volume, height) and provide users with the pleasure of participating at a central point of action, thereby injecting vitality into the city (Woo, 2006). Finally, while maximizing emotional bonds is essential in dark tourism, unreasonable content and excessive commercial development should be avoided (Wang & Lee, 2018).

Phenomenology has always been an essential aspect of spatial research regarding genius loci (the spirit of place), bodily perception, action, time, and other aspects. In current phenomenological research, more attention is given to the detailed consideration of factors such as the lighting environment, time and motion, materials, and textures, deviating from the dominance of visual perception. This includes the body in careful consideration of space. By integrating sensory experiences, a holistic spatial perception is formed, enhancing spatial memory and elevating the spiritual dimension of space. Kim (2016) analyzed the structure and methods of creating a spatial ambience from the perspective of phenomenology and determined the relationship between emotions and ambience. Lee et al. (2020) argue that there is a growing interest in the inherent meaning and functional features of complex cultural spaces. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously expand complex cultural spaces through phenomenological perspectives to improve human emotions and develop cultural art content. Won et al. (2020) built on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and combined unique bodily experiences with Derrida’s theory (Derrida refers to the memory of the other as mourning; he believes that the other has died, yet still lives within me, and will return within me once more) of mourning to enable/allow survivors to grieve fully, overcome sorrow, and expand the meaning of life. Based on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological theory of the centrality of bodily experience, Won (2021) argues that such space can allow for mourning over something not directly related to oneself and facilitate a bodily experience that directly engages with the lessons and reflections the current human history offers us.

Phenomenology ensures the accuracy, continuity, and integrity of memorial emotions by constructing places, using human perceptual experiences as the basis and outcome of place construction. Combining phenomenological spatial perspectives with dark tourism experiences in memorial spaces provides macro-level theoretical guidance for the subsequent sections to be interpreted through the following correlation analysis.

2.1.1. The relationship between “anchoring” and the memory of dark tourism sites in memorial spaces

According to Norberg-Schulz, “the identity of a place is determined by its location, general spatial arrangement, and the clarity of its characteristics.” A dominant place must have an extraordinary connection with the base, settlement, and architectural details (Schulz, 2010, 177). Holl (1989) views exploring the unique relationship between a project and its site as significant and refers to such behavior as “anchoring.” Drawing on anchoring, architects can discover the unique natural environment and historical and cultural connotations inherent in the site and then lay out and organize the memorial space based on preserving the natural and cultural elements to ensure the uniqueness of a specific place and enhance the commemorative atmosphere of the memorial space from its roots. It is the foundation for transforming a featureless and homogeneous “site” into a “place” where specific human behaviors occur.

2.1.2. The relationship between “enmeshed experience” and the spatial experience of dark tourism in memorial spaces

Holl (1996) posits that as the body moves through space, every sensation experienced becomes an “enmeshed experience.” A scene is composed of spaces existing in the foreground, middle ground, and background lighting, and a person’s movement through these spaces unfolds a path that gradually reveals a layered space. The “enmeshed experience” is not merely a momentary perception but a continuous experiential process of navigating through layered spaces, from which one gains a sense of the overall spatial atmosphere. More precisely, the “enmeshed experience” is an individual’s experience of static and dynamic space elements while walking through it. From the perspective of memorial spaces, designers’ use of spatial elements to create an atmosphere can be viewed as a form of “enmeshed” design. In “enmeshed” design, space exhibits a hierarchical characteristic in which each spatial element becomes the middle ground or background of other elements, playing the role of borrowing or contrasting scenery. Therefore, the evaluation and study of memorial space not only focus on individual elements but also consider their positional and volumetric relationships to ensure an accurate evaluation of the space’s atmosphere.

2.1.3. Relationship between “poetic dwelling” and dark tourism sites’ emotional and spiritual aspects in memorial spaces

The phenomenology of architecture (Schulz, 2010) regards “poetic dwelling” as the source of genius loci, in which “poetry” is the perception of genius loci, and “dwelling” refers to “settling down” and thereby leads to “poetic” architecture and space – architecture and space that can accurately convey the genius loci intended to be expressed. Genius loci, or the spirit of place, refers to the experiential quality of architecture and space, implying the specific manifestations of the environment, place, and its various constituent elements that human perception can capture and perceive (Hu 2021). A memorial’s interior and exterior spaces cannot speak for themselves. However, the expression of their constituent elements carries a robust emotional inclination that can accurately highlight the genius loci and conceptual significance that the architect intends to convey (Xu et al. 2021). A memorial space is a place where memorial acts and emotions occur. Architects often use symbolic spatial forms to stimulate people’s imagination when designing such a space. They then combine this with interface design and the use of light to express the emotional characteristics of the space, thereby accurately conveying the genius loci, what phenomenology precisely calls “poetic dwelling.”

2.2. Evaluation methods for memorial spaces

2.2.1. Preliminary research on memorial space evaluation

While the concept and formal characteristics of memorial spaces have evolved, the evaluation methods for these spaces have primarily been based on existing museum evaluation methods.

Kim (2002) based her research on preliminary evaluation, formative evaluation, and final evaluation to establish a comprehensive process from planning to completion. However, she acknowledged the existence of personal and psychological factors that cannot be measured through exhibition evaluation and emphasized that exhibition evaluation is not the sole and complete means of distinguishing the success or failure of an exhibition. Roberts (2014) posited that, unlike traditional design fields such as architecture, landscape, or product design, Interpretation Design is defined by its intent rather than its form. Interpretation Design places visitor experience at the heart of its design intent, ideally considering audience characteristics, motivations, interests, and learning styles. However, when this approach is given attention and involvement in the early stages of a project, it can play a crucial role in shaping the visitor experience. Conversely, achieving the desired results becomes more challenging if intervention occurs later in the design process. Lee (2015) developed an evaluation tool based on sensory evaluation vocabulary extracted from prior research, focusing on spatial interface elements as variables. While this method is valuable, it represents a localized study. Memorial spaces, which differ from general spaces, are richer in symbolism and metaphor. Surface-level research may not deeply examine the intent of memorials to identify the key aspects of memorial space design. Im (2018) explored the possibility of introducing a museum rating system from a tourism perspective in South Korea. The study offered insight regarding the importance of visitor service quality, exhibition quality, and management systems but overlooked the emotional and experiential role of space, failing to integrate space with the visitor experience. Jo (2018) collected various evaluation elements and derived evaluation criteria based on the design of 25 narrative spaces. While this approach was effective for assessing specific aspects of memorial spaces, it may not be suitable for evaluating the diverse functions of modern memorial spaces, and further standardization of evaluation criteria may be needed. The Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism of South Korea evaluated national museums in five categories: “Achievement of Establishment Objectives,” “Appropriateness of Organizational, Human, Facility, and Financial Management,” “Fidelity in Data Collection and Management,” “Performance in Exhibition and Education Program Implementation,” and “Public Responsibility” (Naver, 2023). This evaluation primarily focuses on assessment from a strategic and managerial perspective, highlighting aspects such as facility quality, educational capabilities, management abilities, and performance, but it leans more toward the perspective of administrators and may not adequately reflect the evaluation of visitors in terms of spatial perception and spatial experiential needs. Xie (2015) conducted theoretical research and field surveys to summarize the influencing factors of comprehensive evaluation of commemorative garden landscapes: constitutive elements, spatial structure, spatial form, environmental elements, and harmonious coexistence. He used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to construct a comprehensive evaluation system model for typical commemorative garden landscapes in the main urban area of Nanjing. While this evaluation method comprehensively evaluates various constitutive elements, there remains room for improvement in researching the social aspects of spatial design and the perceptions and experiences of visitors.

Given the current state of memorial space evaluation, it is crucial to explore how to enhance the experience of dark tourism in memorial spaces through planning and design. This can contribute significantly to the historical, economic, and emotional needs of urban residents. This study takes an experiential perspective, with phenomenological spatial theory as its theoretical foundation, to support the experience of dark tourism in memorial spaces that is closely related to bodily perception and action.

To achieve this, the study establishes a connection between the experience of dark tourism in memorial spaces and phenomenology. By combining phenomenological theory with the AHP, it extracts phenomenological spatial elements and creates evaluation criteria for memorial spaces. Furthermore, the study analyzes the weight of various elements in memorial space planning projects. This approach aims to provide a more holistic and user-centered assessment of memorial spaces, aligning them with the principles of phenomenology to enhance the overall experience for visitors engaged in dark tourism.

AHP, proposed by Professor Saaty of the University of Pittsburgh, is a practical and flexible multi-criteria decision-making method (Emrouznejad and Marra 2017). Over the past 20 years, AHP has attracted extensive attention across various industries, including engineering, architecture, and planning (Emrouznejad and Marra 2017, Darko et al. 2019, Lee & Chan 2008). AHP allows for the simultaneous use of subjective and objective data to make appropriate decisions, making it essential for construction-related decision-making (Darko et al. 2019).

AHP builds a hierarchical structure of decision-making factors according to their dominance relationship, forms a judgment structure, analyzes the decision, and obtains each factor’s comprehensive weight and ranking in relation to the overarching goal. Design requirements are obtained through user interviews and research questionnaires, and the indicator factors are hierarchically decomposed for decision-making purposes (Huang and Zhang 2018). First, the AHP establishes a hierarchical structure of design goals and indicator factors. A judgment matrix is then calculated/solved by pairwise comparison of the secondary indicators through expert scoring to determine the comprehensive weight of the overarching goal (Saaty, 2008, Fan and Hao 2022).

2.3. Extraction and categorization of evaluation elements

2.3.1. Extraction of evaluation elements

In the extraction of evaluation elements, based on the phenomenological spatial perspectives at both the theoretical and practical levels, the phenomenological elements of Schulz’s (2010) phenomenology of architecture were summarized from his research on “existential space and architectural space” and “genius loci and the meaning of architecture.” Next, the critical viewpoints of five leading researchers distinctively influenced by the phenomenology of architecture were reviewed, including practitioners of phenomenology, namely, Juhani Pallasmaa, Steven Holl, Peter Zumthor, Robert McCarter, and Pierre von Meiss. Finally, the research contents of the six authors were synthesized and summarized into 24 major spatial elements (Table 1).

Table 1. Elements extracted from the phenomenology of architecture.

No.	Element	Sub-elements
		Juhani Pallasmaa	Steven Holl	Peter Zumthor	Robert McCarter, Juhani Pallasmaa	Pierre von Meiss	Norberg-Schulz
		12 themes	Phenomenal region	12 ambience elements	Cognitive architecture	Elements of architecture	Phenom-enology theory
1	Holistic perception		●	●	●	●	●
2	Orderliness	●		●	●	●	●
3	Volume					●	●
4	Behavioral guidance	●		●		●
5	Relationship between reality and illusion	●
6	Color		●
7	Enclosure relationship	●		●	●	●	●
8	Temperature	●		●	●
9	Tactility	●				●
10	Connectivity	●		●		●	●
11	Light	●	●	●	●	●	●
12	Detail	●	●
13	Landscape	●		●	●	●	●
14	Sound		●	●		●
15	Water		●
16	Structure and layout	●				●
17	Traffic relationship	●					●
18	Continual experience		●				●
19	Visual relationship		●			●	●
20	Objects			●		●
21	Relationship between inside and outside			●		●
22	Proximity			●	●		●
23	Social culture				●
24	Symbolism				●	●	●

2.3.2. Classification of evaluation elements

Jang and Park (2016) conducted spatial analysis research based on the relationship between architecture and environment and on the characteristic of multi-sensory integration and emotional thinking in phenomenological space. Moreover, Kang (2015) analyzed spatial architecture from the perspective of perceptual phenomenology, focusing on bodily sensations and movements in phenomenological space. The current study suggests that Jang and Park’s (2016) classification method accurately reflects the spatial perspectives of existential and perceptual phenomenology. Specifically, it emphasizes the impact of natural and human environments on spatial perception by looking at the relationship of the spatial environment as a whole. Furthermore, it views bodily experience as crucial content, emphasizing the influence of individual bodily experience on spatial perception. Therefore, this study referred to this classification method and categorized the extracted elements from earlier content into the bodily experience and the influence of the spatial environment.

For the sake of subsequent studies on importance, it is necessary to determine the types of elements and further classify them according to these two aspects. Bodily experience is what the experiencer feels and thinks about sensory and emotional activities during the spatial experience process. Related elements can be divided into three categories: perceptual, formal, and structural. The influence of spatial environment is a view on the relationship between spatial environment and social culture, which can be classified into three categories: environmental elements, overall elements, and social elements (Table 2).

Table 2. Classification of phenomenological spatial elements.

Classification Standard		Element Category	24 Phenomenological Spatial Elements
Bodily experience	Bodily perception	Perceptual elements	Temperature, tactility, sound, visual relationships, color
	Body movement	Elements of form	Massing, behavior guidance, intimacy, orderliness, solidity, connectivity, details
		Structural elements	Enclosure, structure and layout, circulation, interior-exterior relationships
Influence of spatial environment	Relationship between spatial environment and social culture	Environmental elements	Lighting, landscape, water, objects
		Overall elements	Holistic perception, sustained experience
		Social elements	Social and cultural factors, symbolism

2.4. Determination of evaluation items

Before conducting importance analysis for the memorial space planning evaluation project, it is necessary to validate and refine the preliminary indicator items to impart objectivity and feasibility to these preliminary evaluation items. Therefore, this study conducted a questionnaire survey among experts in the fields of design (public, interior, exhibition, and visual design), architecture, and museums. The reason for targeting experts in this survey is that the nature of the research topic requires an in-depth understanding of the planning elements of memorial museums (Shin, 2018).

The survey was conducted from 18 March 2022, to 1 April 2022, spanning two weeks, with a distribution of 100 questionnaires and a 100% response rate. Face-to-face interviews were the primary survey method, but to expand the scope of the survey, online and email methods were used for some respondents who were distantly located or preferred non-face-to-face interviews. Following the method used by No Jeongyeon (2010), the applicability of each preliminary evaluation item was analyzed using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “completely unsuitable (1 point)” to “extremely suitable (5 points).”

Based on the questionnaire results for the preliminary indicator items, evaluation items with lower scores and larger standard deviations were eliminated. Furthermore, the evaluation items were revised through expert FGI interviews, and the expert opinions are as follows.

Expert A: Public participation indicators are crucial for the evaluation of memorial spaces. Looking at the evaluation items from the research perspective, all evaluation items hold significance, but some content is redundant. For example, “Enhancement of Memory by Visual Factors” is similar in understanding to “Derivation of Visual Factors,” and consideration should be given to integrating evaluation items with similar meanings.

Expert B: Clarifying the symbolic content of space affects memory. The questionnaire survey items have descriptions of memory, but they are not explicit. This could lead to biased understanding during evaluation. It would be best to add notes or specify details in the questionnaire survey questions.

Expert C: Environmental factors influence the memorial experience. While the questionnaire items address the relationship between space and noisy environments, the relationship between the location of the site in the city and whether the site has employed design elements to insulate from noisy surroundings may lead to different judgments.

Expert D: The stylistic elements of memorial spaces exhibit specific characteristics. The proportion among space, interface, and individuals can indicate different emotional tendencies. However, the concealment of style does not necessarily indicate the quality of memorial space in certain aspects. Additionally, many memorial spaces are intentionally designed to create conflicts and disharmony in the relationship between style and space. Therefore, it is advisable to consider from a more comprehensive perspective and remove or modify unclear elements in the evaluation items.

Expert E: Establish a clear relationship between function and experience within the space. The evaluation of the functional aspects of memorial spaces should assess whether various functional spaces fulfill their intended purposes and whether there is a connection between the functions of space. Some content, such as “Composite Functions of Space,” overlaps with “Diversity” and “Relevance,” and it is recommended that semantically unclear content be removed.

Based on the comprehensive feedback received as mentioned above, a restructuring of the evaluation items was carried out to align them with the intended significance provided by the evaluation model. This process included specifying the content of individual indicators. As a result, a total of 37 evaluation items were derived, as presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Detailed indicators/items for final evaluation project.

Item	Element	Detailed Indicators/Items	Content of Inquiry
A1	Perceptual elements	Enhancement of memory through visual elements	Have the memorial spaces effectively utilized elements of pictures and videos?
A2		Impact of sound on the understanding of experiential content	Has the sound element of the memorial spaces enhanced the viewer’s understanding of the experiential content?
A3		Tactile experience of material	Have the memorial spaces used materials that satisfy the viewer’s tactile experience?
A4		Ease of information acquisition	Can the audience easily access information related to the exhibits?
A5		Influence of advanced technology on experience	Have the memorial spaces utilized cutting-edge technology to enhance the audience’s satisfaction with the experience?
A6		Correspondence between color and theme	Do the colors of the memorial spaces appropriately reflect the commemorative theme?
B1	Elements of form	Uniqueness of sculpture	Have the memorial spaces utilized various structures and shapes for different mourning themes?
B2		Metaphorical characteristics of form	Does the appearance of the memorial spaces reflect metaphorical features?
B3		Guidance provided by the exterior design	Have the memorial spaces appropriately utilized exterior design to guide the audience’s movement?
B4		Presence or absence of spatial order	Has the use of the orderly and disorderly design of the memorial spaces improved the satisfaction of the experience?
B5		Impact of spatial variation on experience	Have the memorial spaces effectively utilized changes in wall structure (such as hollowing and dividing) to provide the audience with a sense of exploration?
B6		Improvement of spatial details	Have the memorial spaces implemented a significant amount of detailed design to enhance the satisfaction of the experience?
C1	Structural elements	Personal space	Are there independent spaces for the audience to commemorate and reflect?
C2		Interaction between indoor and outdoor spaces	Is the flow of the audience between the interior and exterior of the building reasonably planned?
C3		Use of lighting to expand time and space	Are there elements that utilize light to extend temporal and spatial aspects?
C4		Appropriateness of spatial arrangement	Are the spatial layout and planning of the memorial spaces reasonable?
C5		Provision of multiple behavioral experiences	Have a variety of visiting experiences been provided?
C6		Impact of structural changes on emotions	Have changes in the structure of the floor, ceiling, and walls effectively provided the space with multiple emotional factors?
C7		Relief and exacerbation of various emotions	Has the memorial spaces’ transitional space (the connection between spaces) fully considered the audience’s emotional transition?
D1	Environmental elements	Creation of immersive spatial experiences	Has the space created an ambience in which the audience can quickly immerse themselves?
D2		Serene atmosphere of space	Do the memorial spaces give the impression of being fully isolated from the hustle and bustle of the city?
D3		Coordination with the surrounding environment	Do the memorial spaces complement the surrounding environment?
D4		Coordination between external landscape and architecture	Is the external landscape of the memorial spaces coordinated with the architectural style?
D5		Influence of the environment on experiential behavior	Will the design of the road to the memorial spaces affect the audience’s experience?
D6		Provision of space for emotional relaxation	Is there a space for the audience to relax and release their emotions?
D7		Effective communication of memorial themes	Does the atmosphere created by the memorial spaces effectively convey the commemorative theme?
E1	Overall elements	Organic connections between spaces	Have the organic relationships between the various spaces that constitute the memorial spaces been properly implemented?
E2		Provision of diverse experiential modes	Do the memorial spaces provide a diverse range of experiences for the audience?
E3		Formation of narrative space	From a narrative perspective, is the narrative structure of the space clear?
E4		Continuous experiential space	Have the memorial spaces reasonably planned continuous emotional experience nodes?
E5		Understanding of displayed content	Do the audience members have a good understanding of the content displayed in the memorial spaces?
F1	Social elements	Everyday experience	Can the memorial spaces provide daily urban experiences?
F2		Functionality of mourning	Is there a place for commemoration and mourning?
F3		Participation in space memorial activities	Are regular commemorative events held?
F4		Provision of interpretive services	Are professional interpretive services provided?
F5		Engagement with local culture	Do the memorial spaces appropriately reflect the historical and cultural characteristics of the region in which it is located?
F6		Healing function of emotions	Can the memorial spaces provide the audience with a certain degree of psychological healing?

2.5. Data collection

The AHP importance survey was conducted from April 15 to 19, 2022, and involved 50 experts from five fields: public, interior, visual, exhibition, and architectural design. This sample size aligns with previous research standards, as studies such asLee and Chan (2008), Shin (2018), Kim (2019), Ding et al. (2021), and Liu et al. (2022) have typically surveyed more than 20 participants.

To enhance comprehension of the questionnaire content and maintain survey consistency, experts who participated in the first round of questionnaires were selected as participants for the second round, following a method similar to that utilized by Kim (2019). Additionally, due to the challenges of convening numerous experts in a single location and achieving consensus within a short timeframe among expert panels with diverse preferences, statuses, and levels of expertise, this study drew inspiration from the methods of Lee and Chan (2008) and No Jeongyeon (2010). It invited experts to independently assess interview content at the same hierarchical level through a combination of video conferences, interviews, and discussions and then employed the geometric mean value to comprehensively evaluate the results.

The expert interviews were conducted using Saaty’s nine-point scale, following the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology (Saaty, 1980). Experts were required to make pairwise comparisons and judgments for elements at each level of the hierarchy. The evaluation results were analyzed using Expert Choice 11.0 and Excel software to determine the relative importance of evaluation criteria and assess the consistency of judgments. Only responses with a consistency index less than 0.1 were included in the analysis, and the results were used to establish a priority order.

Among the 50 experts who participated in the AHP importance survey, 27 were male (54.0%), and 23 were female (46.0%). In terms of age, 32 experts were in their 30s (64.0%), 16 were in their 40s (32.0%), and two were in their 50s (4.0%).

Regarding their professional backgrounds, the majority were in the field of interior design, with 27 experts (54.0%). Visual design had seven experts (14.0%), exhibition design had six experts (12.0%), and public design and architecture each had five experts (10.0%). In terms of years of professional experience in their respective fields, 27 experts had 11 to 20 years of experience (54.0%), 15 had 6 to 10 years of experience (30.0%), and eight had over 20 years of experience (16.0%).

Regarding educational qualifications, eight experts held master’s degrees (16.0%), 18 were currently pursuing doctoral degrees (36.0%), 13 had completed their doctoral studies (26.0%), and 11 held doctoral degrees (22.0%).

The basic characteristics of AHP respondents are as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Basic characteristics of AHP respondents.

Category		Number of people	Percentage (%)
Total		100	100.0
Gender	Male	27	54.0
	Female	23	46.0
Age range	Over 20	0	0.0
	Over 30	32	64.0
	Over 40	16	32.0
	Over 50	2	4.0
Profession	Interior design	27	54.0
	Exhibition design	6	12.0
	Visual design	7	14.0
	Architecture	5	10.0
	Public design	5	10.0
Experience	Less than 3 years	0	0.0
	3–5 years	0	0.0
	6–10 years	15	30.0
	11–20 years	27	54.0
	Over 20 years	8	16.0
Education	Undergraduate	0	0.0
	Master’s	8	16.0
	Doctorate in progress	18	36.0
	Completed doctorate	13	26.0
	Doctorate	11	22.0

2.6. AHP analysis of evaluation project weights

To analyze the importance of evaluation indicators for the dark tourism experience project in the memorial spaces and obtain the weights of each evaluation indicator, this round of AHP importance analysis was conducted based on the six main planning elements and 37 sub-planning elements shown in Table 3.

2.6.1. AHP analysis of the weights of different categories of planning elements

In the evaluation of memorial space planning projects, a matrix was established by comparing the evaluation projects to determine which one was more important. The relative importance of the evaluation projects was determined using the eigenvalue method. Through the analysis of the data from the expert questionnaire, the relative importance was obtained, as shown in Table 5: overall elements (19.11%) > perceptual elements (18.42%) > structural elements (17.72%) > environmental elements (15.94%) > styling elements (15.76%) > social elements (13.05%).

Table 5. AHP analysis results of main Category planning elements.

Item	Feature Vector	Weight Value	Max. Eigenvalue	CI Value	RI Value	CR Value	Consistency Test
Perceptual elements	1.105	18.42%	6.044	0.009	1.260	0.007	Pass
Elements of form	0.946	15.76%
Structural elements	1.063	17.72%
Environmental elements	0.956	15.94%
Overall elements	1.147	19.11%
Social elements	0.783	13.05%

Note: Generally, when the CR value is less than 0.1, the consistency of the matrix is considered satisfactory. The CR value in this study was calculated to be 0.007 (< 0.1), indicating that the judgment matrix satisfied the consistency test and that the calculated weights were consistent.

2.6.2. Evaluation of the sub-indicators’ importance

Analysis was conducted on the subcategory elements within the six main categories of planning elements through paired comparisons. A matrix was created to determine their relative importance in the decision-making process. The following are the rankings of the sub-elements within each category of planning elements, with specific data presented in Table 6.

Table 6. AHP analysis results for subcategory planning elements.

Item	Feature Vector	Weight Value	Max. Eigenvalue	CI Value	RI Value	CR Value	Consistency Test
A1	1.606	26.77%	6.071	0.014	1.260	0.011	Pass
A2	0.688	11.47%
A3	0.467	7.78%
A4	1.422	23.70%
A5	1.289	21.48%
A6	0.528	8.80%
B1	0.456	7.61%	6.130	0.026	1.260	0.021	Pass
B2	0.717	11.94%
B3	0.712	11.87%
B4	1.407	23.45%
B5	2.267	37.78%
B6	0.441	7.35%
C1	0.317	4.53%	7.103	0.017	1.360	0.013	Pass
C2	0.956	13.65%
C3	1.345	19.21%
C4	2.152	30.75%
C5	0.903	12.9%
C6	0.788	11.26%
C7	0.539	7.71%
D1	0.414	5.91%	7.210	0.035	1.360	0.026	Pass
D2	0.320	4.58%
D3	0.706	10.08%
D4	1.086	15.52%
D5	1.562	22.31%
D6	0.727	10.39%
D7	2.185	31.22%
E1	0.353	7.06%	5.133	0.033	1.120	0.030	Pass
E2	0.834	16.67%
E3	1.759	35.18%
E4	1.276	25.52%
E5	0.778	15.57%
F1	0.627	5.20%	6.060	0.012	1.260	0.009	Pass
F2	1.011	14.26%
F3	0.852	12.70%
F4	0.634	8.90%
F5	1.421	28.18%
F6	1.454	30.77%

Note: Generally, when the CR value is less than 0.1, the consistency of the matrix is considered satisfactory. The obtained CR values in this calculation were all less than 0.1, indicating that the judgment matrix satisfied the consistency test and that the calculated weights were consistent.

3. Results

To establish the priority ranking of the 37 specific criteria, we performed a comprehensive weight calculation based on the weights derived from the previous analyses of the primary and detailed evaluation criteria. Specifically, we multiplied the weight values of the major classification and detailed evaluation criteria to obtain the weighted importance. The results are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Ranking of the 37 specific criteria based on weighted importance.

Criteria	Weighted Importance
1. The formation of a narrative space	0.067%
2. The influence of spatial form changes on experience	0.060%
3. The appropriateness of spatial arrangement	0.054%
4. Effective communication of commemorative themes	0.050%
5. Enhancement of memory through visual elements	0.049%
6 .Continuous emotional experiential space	0.049%
7. Ease of information acquisition	0.044%
8. The impact of advanced technology on experience	0.040%
9. The presence of spatial order	0.037%
10. The influence of environment on experiential behavior	0.035%
11. The use of light to extend time and space	0.034%
12. Providing multiple experiential modes	0.032%
13. The healing function of emotions	0.032%
14. Exchange with local culture	0.031%
15. An understanding of exhibition content	0.030%
16. Coordination between external landscape and architecture	0.025%
17. Interaction between indoor and outdoor spaces	0.024%
18. Providing multiple behavioral experiences	0.023%
19. The function of mourning	0.022%
20. The influence of sound on understanding experiential content	0.021%
21. The impact of structural changes on emotions	0.020%
22. Metaphorical characteristics of form	0.019%
23. Guidance of exterior design	0.019%
24. Participation in commemorative activities in space	0.018%
25. Providing space for relaxing emotions	0.017%
26. Correspondence between color and theme	0.016%
27. Coordination with the surrounding environment	0.016%
28. The tactile experience of materials	0.014%
29. Provision of interpretation services	0.014%
30. Relief and excess of various emotions	0.014%
31. Daily experience	0.014%
32. Organic connections between spaces	0.014%
33. The uniqueness of sculpture	0.012%
34. Improvement of details in the space	0.012%
35. Creating a sense of immersion in the space	0.009%
36. Private space	0.008%
37. Tranquility of space	0.007%

4. Discussion

The evaluation findings of this study have highlighted the critical factors that shape the dark tourism experience within memorial spaces. These factors should be integral to the planning and design processes to ensure that visitors have enriching and meaningful experiences in these places. Foremost among these factors is comprehensiveness, signifying that in the planning of memorial spaces, a holistic consideration of their constituent elements is essential to collectively create a place of profound significance. The significance of comprehensiveness may stem from visitors seeking a holistic experience within memorial spaces. Visitors often aspire to perceive historical and cultural integrity in these places rather than disjointed pieces of information or fragmented experiences. This might also be related to the desire for a comprehensive understanding of historical events and cultural backgrounds, which visitors seek to acquire through their visits. This discovery underscores the importance of regarding comprehensiveness as paramount when reconstructing or renovating memorial spaces to adequately meet the perceptual and emotional needs of visitors. Future designs and plans should emphasize integration and coordination to ensure that all elements of memorial spaces complement each other and create a unified and meaningful experience.

Furthermore, the analysis results have revealed a profound connection between spatial layout and overall narrative as well as visitors’ continuous emotional journeys within the space. The importance of narrative elements may be attributed to the fact that a captivating story can engage visitors’ interests and guide them to a deeper understanding of historical events. Memorial spaces should be effective in conveying historical narratives, allowing visitors to emotionally engage with the events being portrayed. This connection aids in providing diverse experiential functions and deepening the understanding of the exhibited content. In planning and design, considerations should be made as to how to effectively convey themes, sustain emotional fluctuations, and offer healing functions to meet visitors’ multi-dimensional needs. Future memorial space designs may explore innovative strategies such as soundscapes, interactive installations, and virtual reality technologies to provide more profound and unforgettable experiences.

Perception factors, especially visual and informational perception, have also proven to be indispensable. The significance of visual and informational perception factors likely arises from the pivotal role perception plays in shaping visitors’ experiences. Vision is one of the primary modes of perception, making it imperative for the visual elements of memorial spaces to be compelling. Informational perception is equally crucial as visitors require historical and cultural information to comprehend the meaning behind the exhibits. Therefore, in the planning and design of memorial spaces, special attention should be given to these perception factors to ensure that visitors gain a comprehensive perception and understanding of the space’s essence. Future designs could explore more innovative ways to enhance perception experiences and encourage deeper reflection on history and culture.

Finally, factors related to spatial layout, conveying memorial themes, spatial order, and environmental impact on visitor behavior are also essential. The layout and spatial arrangement of memorial spaces can influence visitor behavior and perception. A well-thought-out layout can guide visitors through specific routes to ensure that they gain a comprehensive understanding of the exhibit content. Moreover, spatial layout can influence visitors’ emotional experiences; for example, a serene and dignified area might be more suitable for reflection and contemplation. The importance of conveying memorial themes lies in the core objective of memorial spaces, which is to communicate the essence of history and culture. If memorial themes are not effectively conveyed, visitors may lose their understanding of and interest in the exhibits. Therefore, designers and managers need to ensure that themes are appropriately conveyed to guide visitors into deeper engagement and contemplation. The factor of spatial order may be associated with the overall visitor experience. Carefully designed spatial order can better achieve the exhibition and educational objectives by affecting visitors’ emotions and behaviors. The environmental impact on visitor behavior factor might involve creating an atmosphere and emotional ambiance within memorial spaces. Environmental design and ambiance can influence visitors’ emotional experiences and behavioral responses. For example, appropriate use of water and lighting can enhance visitors’ emotional engagement, immersing them further in the atmosphere of the memorial space. Considerations in these aspects can enhance visitors’ spatial experiences, enabling them to better understand and resonate with the historical and cultural values represented by the memorial space. Future planning and design should emphasize more human-centered elements, such as captivating storylines and presentation methods that are adaptable to different cultures and age groups, to provide more attractive and educational experiences.

5. Conclusion

Dark tourism in memorial spaces has now evolved into a significant mode of tourism. However, the enhancement of spatial tourism experiences presents numerous decision-making challenges. For memorial museum managers and designers, the evaluation of planning elements in spatial enhancement serves as a pivotal reference in decision-making. Balancing decisions based on existing resources and varying opinions from stakeholders to formulate region-specific, human-centric, and experientially beneficial planning recommendations can be an intricate task. Hence, this study has proposed the integration of the AHP with phenomenological theory to address these challenges. To illustrate how AHP can be amalgamated with phenomenological theory and applied to project planning evaluations, this paper established the relationships among memorial spaces, dark tourism, and phenomenology. It also extracted evaluation criteria and conducted a comprehensive analysis of planning elements in memorial spaces. This approach can mitigate the issues of lacking evaluation standards in the planning and review processes of memorial space projects, serving as the foundation for design strategies during the development process. By offering criteria for assessing the appropriateness of memorial spaces, it holds significant implications for both the revitalization of existing memorial spaces and the development of new ones.

This study has certain limitations in practical testing and interdisciplinary evaluation. While the proposed applicability builds upon prior research, its objectivity might be somewhat deficient, and further research is imperative to validate its objectivity. Additionally, this study exclusively selected samples from a single region for evaluating memorial space assessment criteria, which could constrain its generalizability. It is necessary to investigate whether samples from other regions yield different results and revise and expand upon this study in future research endeavors. Furthermore, it is important to note that this study focused on memorial spaces, and its applicability to different types of museum spaces requires further validation.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China under Grant [No. 20BG127]; the National Museum of China under Grant [No. GBKX2021Z10]; and Jiangsu Province University Philosophy Social Science Fund under Grant [No. 2022SJYB1842].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the the National Museum of China [No. GBKX2021Z10]; the National Social Science Fund of China [No. 20BG127]; Jiangsu Province University Philosophy Social Science Fund [No. 2022SJYB1842].

Notes on contributors

Jiaxing Liu

Jiaxing Liu is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer in the Academy of Arts and Design at Tsinghua University. He obtained his master's degree from Tsinghua University and his doctoral degree from Chosun University. He has published over ten papers in significant domestic and international journals such as SCIE, SSCI, A&HCI, EI, and KCI. His research interests include public space environmental art design, as well as the digital exhibition and communication of cultural heritage.

Jue Chen

Jue Chen is an Associate Professor and Master's Supervisor at the School of Art and Design, Guangdong University of Finance & Economics. He holds a master's degree from Tsinghua University and a Ph.D. from South China University of Technology. His research focuses on architectural and interior/exterior environmental design, as well as design philosophy and aesthetics. In recent years, he has published over ten papers in prestigious domestic and international academic journals, including EI, SCI, CSSCI, and others.

Yongchao Zhu

Yongchao Zhu is a master's student at the School of Innovation Design, City University of Macau. Her main research interests include urban image design, cultural and creative product design, as well as design and cultural studies.

Lie Zhang

Lie Zhang is an associate professor and doctoral supervisor of the School of Art and Design, Tsinghua University, and director of the Institute of Interactive Media Art and Design. At the same time, he also held several positions, including deputy Dean of the Institute for Accessibility Development of Tsinghua University, and director of the Museum Communication Research Laboratory of the National Image Communication Research Center of Tsinghua University.

He has long been engaged in teaching, interdisciplinary research and practice in digital creativity, display and communication, and intelligent service innovation of cultural heritage. He also undertook a number of research projects on digital culture and heritage dissemination.

He presided over the exhibition and digital creative work of a number of national public cultural construction projects such as the China Pavilion of the 2019 Beijing International Horticultural Exposition, the Confucius Museum, the digital exhibition of the Grand Gaoxuan Hall of the Forbidden City, and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Exhibition Center of the Grand Canal of China.

His works have received significant awards, including the Golden Award at the Third China Art Award.