本研究以服務設計雙鑽石結構觀點，執行「問題發現」、「定義」、「發展」到「實行」階段，並導入服務設計方法，改善新竹市隆恩圳三民河道使用體驗。研究目的為探討目前民眾於河道路徑與場域體驗品質現狀，發掘關鍵問題及服務提供方向與中高年齡層外出意願間的關聯性，並依據研究結果，對未來綠地相關服務體驗，提出價值元素的設計與建議。
在「問題發現」階段，針對新竹市隆恩圳，以非參與式觀察、半結構式訪談及重要表現程度分析法探索問題，並由人物誌、顧客旅程圖及HMW句型，「定義」問題，提出體驗的缺口：(1)目標場域本身並未具備主動性吸引力。(2)目標族群於目標場域活動，期待收穫任務滿足感受。(3)結束過後回顧整體流程，能夠獲得預期以外的效益。於「發展」階段利用共創工作坊、故事板與半結構式訪談，發散思考問題解法可能性、迭代出最終方向。根據使用性與使用者經驗，設計出介面原型，同時繪製服務藍圖，呈現最終服務。利用體驗價值量表，以組間設計方式，比較原、新服務體驗品質及深度訪談，彙整後綜合結果：(1)場域中須根據目標族群在乎的價值元素，為目標場域提出合適的驚奇設計與故事設計，方能提供持續吸引力。(2)藉由場域以平臺分享性連結周遭居民，能在離開後有效對目標場域產生黏著度。(3)介面設計以顧客滿意度延伸三大使用性原則，有助於此類服務介面設計。(4)重複性活動獲得額外獲益感受，能使得目標族群對於整體體驗產生更高情緒。

This research adopted a double diamond structure of the service design framework through the stages of “problem discovery,” “definition,” “development,” and “deliver.” Service design methods were employed to improve the user experience of the Longenzhen Sanmin Canal, Hsinchu City. This research aimed to investigate the current state of the public’s experience regarding the riverside trail and its surroundings, to identify key issues, and to explore the correlation between service provisions and the willingness of middle-aged and older adults to go outdoors. Based on the research findings, this research proposed design suggestions and value elements for future green space related service experience. During the “problem discovery” stage, non-participatory observation, semi-structured interviews, and importance-performance analysis were conducted to explore issues regarding the Longenzhen Canal. Personas, customer journey maps, and the HMW framework were used to define the problems and identify gaps in the experience. (1) The target site itself lacked inherent attractiveness. (2) The target group expected to fulfill their tasks and experience a sense of satisfaction during activities at the target site. (3) Reflecting on the overall process after the activities, the participants experienced unexpected benefits.
In the “development” stage, co-creation workshops, storyboards, and semi-structured interviews were utilized to generate and iterate potential solutions. Based on usability and user experience, interface prototypes were designed, and service blueprints were created to depict the final service. The original and new service experiences were compared using an experiential value scale through a between-subjects design. The results, combined with in-depth interviews, yielded the following results. (1) The target site should incorporate surprise and storytelling designs that aligned with the value elements important to the target group to sustain attractiveness. (2) Creating connections with the local residents through the site as a sharing platform enhanced post-visit engagement. (3) Interface design should adhere to the three usability principles extended from customer satisfaction, thus benefiting this type of service interface design. (4) Repeated activities with additional benefits contributed to a higher emotional attachment to the overall experience for the target group.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656. https://doi. org/10.1086/209376
Best, K. (2006). Design management: Managing design strategy, process and implementation. AVA Publishing.
Clatworthy, S. (2011). Service innovation through touch-points: Development of an innovation toolkit for the first stages of new service development. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 15-28.
Design Council (2005). A study of the design process. Design Council.
Design Council (2015). Design methods for developing service. Design Council.
Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. In D. Benyon, & P. Moody (Eds.), DIS ’04: Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 261-268). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013152
Gallarza, M. G., Maubisson, L., Rivière, A. (2021) Replicating consumer value scales: A comparative study of EVS and PERVAL at a cultural heritage site. Journal of Business Research, 126, 614-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.070
Garrett, J. J. (2002). The elements of user experience: User-centered design for the web. Peachpit.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J., & De Neve, J.-E. (Eds.) (2020). World happiness report 2020. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer’s value: An axiology of service in consumption experience. In R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 21-71). Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781452229102.n2
Huerta, C. M., & Utomo, A. (2021). Evaluating the association between urban green spaces and subjective well-being in Mexico city during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health & Place, 70, 102606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102606
ISO (2018). ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of human-system interaction. International Organization for Standardization.
Lupton, E. (2017). Design is storytelling. Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum.
Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Mager, B., Sistig, M., Chen, Y., Ruiz, K., & Corona, C. (2020). The future of service design. Köln International School of Design.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00045-2
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen, & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25-62). John Wiley & Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons.
Qin, Y. (2021). Attractiveness of game elements, presence, and enjoyment of mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go. Telematics and Informatics, 62, 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101620
Rantakokko, M., Portegijs, E., Viljanen, A., Iwarsson, S., Kauppinen, M., & Rantanen, T. (2017). Perceived environmental barriers to outdoor mobility and changes in sense of autonomy in participation outdoors among older people: A prospective two-year cohort study. Aging & Mental Health, 21(8), 805-809. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2016. 1159281
Schneider, J., & Stickdorn, M. (2010). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. BIS Publishers.
Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O’Reilly Media.
Takano, T., Nakamura, K., & Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(12), 913-918. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/jech.56.12.913
Veitch, J., Ball, K., Rivera, E., Loh, V., Deforche, B., Best, K., & Timperio, A. (2022). What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction. Landscape and Urban Planning, 217, 104254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104254
Wang, A. I., & Skjervold, A. (2021). Health and social impacts of playing Pokémon Go on various player groups. Entertainment Computing, 39, 100443. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.entcom.2021.100443
White, H. (2021). Moving beyond downloads and views when assessing digital repositories. In G. Haddow, & H. White (Eds.), Assessment as information practice: Evaluating collections and services (pp. 107-117). Routledge.
內政部營建署（1999）。公園綠地法草案。內政部營建署。
王文科、王智弘（2020）。教育研究法（19版）。五南。
王秀娟、王希智（2000）。都市地區公園綠地基礎調查與系統建立之研究—以臺北市士林地區為例。環境與藝術學刊，1，51-69。
玉樹真一郎（2021）。「體驗設計」創意思考術（「ついやってしまう」体験のつくりかた）（江宓蓁譯）。平安文化。（原作2019年出版）
宋同正（2014）。序—服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具。設計學報，19（2），1-8。
李來春、陳圳卿、曹筱玥、林寶蓮（2018）。互動設計概論。全華圖書。
社團法人高雄市建築經營協會（編）（2021）。2021建築園冶獎。社團法人高雄市建築經營協會。
韋煙灶（主編）（2018）。從清代到當代：新竹300年文獻特輯。新竹市文化局。
唐淑珍（2021）。中高齡玩家之遊戲吸引要素分析—以寶可夢GO為例［未出版碩士論文］。國立雲林科技大學。
國家發展委員會（2020）。中華民國人口推估（2020至2070年）。國家發展委員會。
國家發展委員會國土區域離島發展處（編）（2021）。都市及區域發展統計彙編。國家發展委員會。
許睿洋（2021）。中高齡者參與「精靈寶可夢GO」學習歷程後人際關係改變之研究［未出版碩士論文］。國立中正大學。
勞動部（2020）。中高齡者及高齡者就業促進法。勞動部。
新竹市政府（2019）。新竹左岸整體水環境改善工程計畫。新竹市政府。
新竹市政府（2021）。2021新竹市永續發展目標自願檢視報告。新竹市政府。
遠見雜誌整合傳播部（2020，12月4日）。設計力導入，新竹古城展現年輕魅力。遠見雜誌。取自https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/76167
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究—理論與運用。心理。
錢宛青（2019）。中高齡玩家在精靈寶可夢GO的社會互動與連結［未出版碩士論文］。國立交通大學。