| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 地理學系 === 100 === Co-opetition strategies have been adapted widely between enterprises to seek the best operational tactics. Although many scholars put co-opetition strategies to use to analyze the operational status between enterprises, few use these strategies to review the actual ability of the public departments. Therefore, many built public facilities are neglected and fall into disuse. This study focuses on two immediate-neighbored public facilities, Hsing-Hsien Academy and Yuanlin Park, as the objects. The current co-opetition situation of the two facilities is examined through the prospective of user behavior. Basically, the purpose of existence and the importance of the two facilities are quite different. Yuanlin Park is a community park. Any associate plan is map out according to urban planning, for the purpose of improving the living quality of local residents. Hsing-Hsien Academy is ratified by the Ministry of Domestic Affair as a third grade historic heritage. It was an important base for the communication of knowledge. It is also a resource to attract tourists, and gives the local residents a sense
of belonging.
This research uses questionnaire and semi-structured interview to understand how different facilities’ domain of services represent to different users, as well as the difference between their attitudes of cognition, in order to draw up plans for co-opetition. The result will indicate the different domain of service, as well as users’ attitude of cognition and behavior, between Yuanlin Park and Hsing-Hsien Academy. The service range of Hsing-Hsien Academy is bigger, whether it is during weekdays or weekend. It is conflicting in the aspect of user behavior. For example, in the views of user motivation, types of activities, improvement/modification and the reasons why certain public facilities are less frequently used, complaints from the users of both facilities are raised due to the differences in the characteristics of activities. However, there remains the possibility for co-opetition. For instance, because the users from both sides operate the facilities differently, they can complement one another. Moreover, significant differences exist in the cognitive aspect of co-opetition between users of different purposes and objectives. The operational patterns of the two facilities are examined. Co-opetition plans are drawn up to keep up the management of public facilities motivated and prospective, therefore used as practice reference for
future urban public facilities’ construction.
|
|---|
