Table 2.
Questionnaire survey on public space after art intervention.
| Category | Project | No. | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 12 | 40% |
| Female | 18 | 60% | |
| Educational Background | Primary school and below | 20 | 67% |
| Junior high school | 3 | 10% | |
| High school | 3 | 10% | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 3 | 10% | |
| Above bachelor’s degree | 1 | 3% | |
| Age | Children | 10 | 33% |
| Middle-aged | 10 | 33% | |
| Elderly | 10 | 33% | |
| Resident Attributes | Local residents | 24 | 80% |
| Surrounding residents | 4 | 13% | |
| Tourists | 2 | 7% | |
| Satisfaction with the intervened public space | satisfied | 18 | 60% |
| Average | 8 | 27% | |
| Dissatisfied | 4 | 13% | |
| The artistic intervention has had a positive impact on the village. | Agree | 27 | 90% |
| Neutral | 3 | 10% | |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | |
| The artistic intervention has improved the appearance of public spaces | Agree | 28 | 93.3% |
| Neutral | 1 | 3.3% | |
| Disagree | 1 | 3.3% | |
| The artistic intervention has had a positive effect on the local economy. | Agree | 25 | 83.3% |
| Neutral | 5 | 16.7% | |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | |
| The artistic intervention has enhanced the social and cultural values of the village. | Agree | 24 | 80% |
| Neutral | 5 | 16.7% | |
| Disagree | 1 | 3.3% | |
| Most frequent visit to which public space | Laundry pavilion | 20 | 67% |
| Gathering space | 5 | 17% | |
| Plaza | 2 | 6% | |
| Village entrance | 3 | 10% | |
| Least frequent visit to which public space | Farmland | 27 | 90% |
| Market | 3 | 10% | |
| How artistic intervention has promoted village development | Art activities enriched the cultural heritage of the ancient village | 16 | 53% |
| Attracted more tourists for art activities, driving the development of the local tourism industry | 14 | 47% | |
| Participation in the artistic intervention process | Participate | 22 | 73% |
| Did not participate | 8 | 27% |