## 4 Results  
### Results of FDM  
In the first part of this study, 16 experts were invited to review the importance of design indicators through FDM. Table 3 shows the evaluation results after 16 experts reached a consensus on 12 design indicators in two-stage FDM. To inspect whether the four different groups would have evaluation gaps due to cognitive differences for indicators in the review stage, this study chose seven indicators to analyze every stage as an index for future decision-making analysis and to make sure the results were clear. During our analysis, other indicators were treated as unimportant and discarded due to the compromise in the process of building a consensus. Going through two-stage FDM, 16 experts reached a consensus on the importance of design indicators collectively and within each group. The important indicators, in sequence are: Spatial function, building aesthetic, building security, urban form, facilities maintenance, environmental impact, and sustainable development. However, the overall consensus and separate groups' consensus demonstrated cognitive differences in how important certain factors were perceived to be, though the experts from the four groups had already chosen seven consensus indicators for decision analysis through FDM. The two-stage evaluation results of each group and the overall evaluation results are presented in Table 4.  
After determining consensus indicators through FDM, only the two-stage evaluation results of seven important indicators from the scholar's group and the final evaluation results as a whole are fully consistent. The seven indicators valued by the other three groups are respectively shown as follows:  
* Reviewer's group: Environmental impact, public interest, building aesthetic, urban form, facilities maintenance, spatial function, and sustainable development. * Architect's group: Spatial function, building security, urban form, multiple satisfactions, facilities maintenance, building aesthetic, and environmental impact. * Developer's group: Market strategy, facilities maintenance, spatial function, building aesthetic, financial affairs, building security, and environmental impact. Of the seven consensus indicators, only \"spatial function\" and \"building aesthetic\" are consistent in all four groups in the two-stage FDM and as the first two important indicators. Furthermore, except for the scholar's group, even though the other three groups reached an overall consensus, they still had their own preferred indicators: \"Public interest\" for the reviewer's group, \"multiple satisfactions\" for the architect's groups, and \"market strategy\" and \"financial affairs\" for the developer's group. However, these four indicators were discarded through compromise in the process of building a consensus of the overall. Moreover, although FDM conducts expert questionnaires anonymously, the evaluation results of the previous stage are provided for participants as references to the second stage evaluation before the participants reach a consensus. Comparing the two-stage evaluation results, it was found that the operational method will lead participants to actively compromise. For instance, the architect's group evaluated \"sustainable development\" as the ninth ranking in the first stage, but they upgraded it to the fifth in the second stage because all other groups valued it as the one of seven most important indicators. Similarly, \"market strategy\" and \"financial affairs\" in the architect's group were separately valued as the fourth and the fifth in the first stage, and though the developer's group had the same evaluation, the others evaluated these two indicators as unimportant, which led the architect's group to adjust their evaluation and re-rank the two as the eighth and the 10 th in the second stage. The same thing also happened in the developer's group, which adjusted \"environmental impact\" from ninth to seventh place when compromising with the other three groups' evaluations.