ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
10.1145/3461778.3462130acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access
Honorable Mention

Citizen-Centered Design in Urban Planning: How Augmented Reality can be used in Citizen Participation Processes

Authors Info & Claims
DIS '21: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021June 2021 Pages 250–265https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462130
Online:28 June 2021Publication History
  • 1citation
  • 1,761
  • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations1
Total Downloads1,761
Last 12 Months1,618
Last 6 weeks153
DIS '21: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021
Citizen-Centered Design in Urban Planning: How Augmented Reality can be used in Citizen Participation Processes
Pages 250–265
PreviousChapterNextChapter

ABSTRACT

Most participation processes in urban planning offer poor incentives, especially for young citizens, hence important citizen's needs are excluded. Our work aims at identifying the degree to which Augmented Reality (AR) might motivate young people. We developed an AR-app with Unity3D to create new interaction concepts for use cases in urban planning. Building projects and environment changes are visualized, so citizens can contribute design ideas to the process. Using a human-centered design approach, we invited different stakeholders to participate. We conducted 40 interviews and a survey, then interaction concepts were evolved by citizens in four participatory design workshops. Our findings show that AR can motivate increased participation in urban planning. We also demonstrate a new approach to engaging low-tech users in designing high-tech solutions such as AR systems by using haptic 3D-tools like Lego or clay. Furthermore, we propose ways in which AR could be used collaboratively and embedded in existing participation processes.

References

  1. Jose Aguilar, Francisco Díaz, Junior Altamiranda, Jorge Cordero, Danilo Chavez, and Jose Gutierrez. 2020. Metropolis: Emergence in a Serious Game to Enhance the Participation in Smart City Urban Planning. J Knowl Econ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00679-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Georg Aichholzer and Gloria Rose. 2020. Experience with Digital Tools in Different Types of e-Participation. In European E-Democracy in Practice, Leonhard Hennen, Ira van Keulen, Iris Korthagen, Georg Aichholzer, Ralf Lindner and Rasmus Ø. Nielsen, Eds. Studies in Digital Politics and Governance. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 93–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Max Allen, Holger Regenbrecht, and Mick Abbott. 2011. Smart-phone augmented reality for public participation in urban planning. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on - OzCHI '11. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 11–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2071536.2071538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Dhiraj Amin and Sharvari Govilkar. 2015. Comparative Study of Augmented Reality Sdk's. International Journal on Computational Science & Applications 5, 1, 11–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsa.2015.5102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko. 2012. Urban Planning 2.0. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR) 1, 1, 16–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2012010103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sherry R. Arnstein. 1969. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 4, 216–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Joachim Åström. 2020. Participatory Urban Planning: What Would Make Planners Trust the Citizens? UP 5, 2, 84–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i2.3021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Devis Bianchini, Daniela Fogli, and Davide Ragazzi. 2016. Promoting Citizen Participation through Gamification. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Gothenburg, Sweden - October 23 - 27, 2016. ACM, New York, NY, 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Monica Billger, Liane Thuvander, and Beata S. Wästberg. 2017. In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44, 6, 1012–1035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516657341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Claus Bossen, Christian Dindler, Julia Garde, and Volkmar Pipek. 2014. Evaluation, sustainability and long-term effects of participatory design projects. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts - PDC '14 - volume 2. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 219–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Maggie Breslin and Richard Buchanan. 2008. On the case study method of research and teaching in design. Design Issues 24, 1, 36–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Fabio Buttussi and Luca Chittaro. 2018. Effects of Different Types of Virtual Reality Display on Presence and Learning in a Safety Training Scenario. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 2, 1063–1076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2653117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Paolo Cardullo and Rob Kitchin. 2019. Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37, 5, 813–830. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Nico Carpentier. 2016. Beyond the Ladder of Participation: An Analytical Toolkit for the Critical Analysis of Participatory Media Processes. Javnost - The Public 23, 1, 70–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2016.1149760.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Fiorella de Cindio. 2012. Guidelines for Designing Deliberative Digital Habitats: Learning from e-Participation for Open Data Initiatives. JoCI 8, 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v8i2.3040.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. David Collingridge. 1982. The social control of technology (Repr). Pinter, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Meredith Conroy, Jessica T. Feezell, and Mario Guerrero. 2012. Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 5, 1535–1546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Katherine Crewe. 2001. The Quality of Participatory Design: The Effects of Citizen Input on the Design of the Boston Southwest Corridor. Journal of the American Planning Association 67, 4, 437–455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Dominic Cushnan and Hassan El Habbak. 2013. Developing AR games for iOS and Android. Develop and deploy augmented reality apps using Vuforia SDK and Unity 3D. Community experience distilled. Packt Pub, Birmingham, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Amandeep Dhir and Mohammed Al-kahtani. 2013. A Case Study on User Experience (UX) Evaluation of Mobile Augmented Reality Prototypes. Journal of Universal Computer Science 19, 8, 1175–1196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. 2020. Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion – Teil 210: Menschzentrierte Gestaltung interaktiver Systeme.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicola Döring and Jürgen Bortz. 2016. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (4., überarb. Aufl.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Andreas Dünser, Raphaël Grasset, Hartmut Seichter, and Mark Billinghurst. 2007. Applying HCI Principles to AR Systems Design. Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Mixed Reality User Interfaces: Specification, Authoring, Adaptation (MRUI ’07), March 11, 37–42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Noella Edelmann, Robert Krimmer, and Peter Parycek. 2008. Engaging youth through deliberative e-participation: a case study. International Journal of Electronic Governance 1, 4, 385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2008.022068.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Titiana-Petra Ertiö. 2015. Participatory Apps for Urban Planning—Space for Improvement. Planning Practice & Research 30, 3, 303–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jonas Fegert, Jella Pfeiffer, Anna Golubyeva, Nadine Pfeiffer-Leßmann, Anuja Hariharan, Patrick Renner, Thies Pfeiffer, Mark Hefke, Tim Straub, and Christof Weinhardt. 2019. Take Part Prototype: Creating New Ways of Participation Through Augmented and Virtual Reality. In 29th Workshop an Information Technologies and Systems (WITS), Munich Germany, December 18-20 2019. Ed.: Y. Lu. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000104413.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonas Fegert, Jella Pfeiffer, Christian Peukert, Anna Golubyeva, and Christof Weinhardt. 2020. Combining e-Participation with Augmented and Virtual Reality: Insights from a Design Science Research Project. In ICIS 2020 Proceedings. AIS eLibrary (AISeL), Paper- Nr.: 1521.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonas Fegert, Jella Pfeiffer, Christian Peukert, and Christof Weinhardt. 2020. Enriching E-Participation through Augmented Reality: First Results of a Qualitative Study. In WI2020 Zentrale Tracks, Norbert Gronau, Moreen Heine, K. Poustcchi and H. Krasnova, Eds. GITO Verlag, 560–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_e5-fegert.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jonathan B. Field. 2019. Town hall meetings and the death of deliberation. Forerunners: Ideas First. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus Foth, Glenda A. Caldwell, Joel Fredericks, and Kirsty Volz. 2018. Augmenting cities beyond bedazzlement: Empowering local communities through immersive urban technologies. In Workshop Proceedings of Augmenting Cities and Architecture with Immersive Technologies, Media Architecture Biennale (MAB-18). Media Architecture Biennale, mab18vrarmrworkshop.wordpress.com/workshop-papers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Joel Fredericks and Marcus Foth. 2013. Augmenting public participation: enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0. Australian Planner 50, 3, 244–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.748083.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kavita Gonsalves, Marcus Foth, Glenda Caldwell, and Waldemar Jenek. 2020. Radical Placemaking: Immersive, Experiential and Activist Approaches for Marginalised Communities. Connections: Exploring heritage, architecture, cities, art, media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Google AR Core. Performance considerations. Retrieved February 9, 2021 from https://developers.google.com/ar/develop/developer-guides/performance-considerations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eric Gordon and Edith Manosevitch. 2011. Augmented deliberation: Merging physical and virtual interaction to engage communities in urban planning. New Media Soc 13, 1, 75–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Stefano Grassi and Thomas Klein. 2016. 3D augmented reality for improving social acceptance and public participation in wind farms planning. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 749, 12020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/749/1/012020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Malgorzata Hanzl. 2007. Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies 28, 3, 289–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Lobna Hassan and Juho Hamari. 2019. Gamification of E-Participation: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Lobna Hassan, Benedikt Morschheuser, Nader Alexan, and Juho Hamari. 2018. First-hand experience of why gamification projects fail and what to do about it. In Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference, Jonna Koivisto and Juho Hamari, Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS, 141–150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Peter Hemmersam, Nicole Martin, Even Westvang, Jonny Aspen, and Andrew Morrison. 2015. Exploring Urban Data Visualization and Public Participation in Planning. Journal of Urban Technology 22, 4, 45–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1073898.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Wolfgang Höhl and Daniel Broschart. 2015. Augmented reality in Architektur und Stadtplanung. gis.Science - Die Zeitschrift fur Geoinformatik 1, January 2015, 20–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/epub.35802.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 2014. Contextual Design: Evolved. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 7, 4, 1–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2200/S00597ED1V01Y201409HCI024.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Kirralie Houghton, Evonne Miller, and Marcus Foth. 2014. Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges. Australian Planner 51, 1, 24–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.770771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Andrew J. Hunsucker, Kelly McClinton, Jennifer Wang, and Erik Stolterman. 2017. Augmented reality prototyping for interaction design students. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings Part F127655, 1018–1023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Walter Hussy, Margrit Schreier, and Gerald Echterhoff. 2010. Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften. 1098-6596 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34362-9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Liesbeth Huybrechts, Henric Benesch, and Jon Geib. 2017. Institutioning: Participatory Design, Co-Design and the public realm. CoDesign 13, 3, 148–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1355006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Hyekyung Imottesjo and Jaan-Henrik Kain. 2018. The Urban CoBuilder – A mobile augmented reality tool for crowd-sourced simulation of emergent urban development patterns: Requirements, prototyping and assessment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 71, 120–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.05.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Shafaq Irshad. 2015. Design Implications for Quality User eXperience in Mobile Augmented Reality Applications. In , pp 1283-1294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24584-3_110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Renee A. Irvin and John Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Admin Rev 64, 1, 55–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Isabelle Doll, Karsten Rexroth, and P. Both. 2017. Augmented Reality in der Stadt: Neue Potenziale durch die Entwicklung einer Lichtmarker-Technologie. In PANTA RHEI - a world in constant motion. Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society : Tagungsband : 12-14 September, 2017, Vienna, Austria : REAL CORP 2017, Manfred Schrenk, Ed. CORP, Wien.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Korina M. Jocson. 2018. Youth Media Matters. Participatory Cultures and Literacies in Education. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Rachel Kallus. 2016. Citizenship in action: participatory urban visualization in contested urban space. Journal of Urban Design 21, 5, 616–637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1186490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Kamols, Nicholas , Foth, Marcus , & Guaralda, Mirko (2021) Beyond Engagement Theatre: Challenging Institutional Constraints of Participatory Planning Practice. Australian Planner . (In Press) Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Soonhee Kim and Jooho Lee. 2012. E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government. Public Admin Rev 72, 6, 819–828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Sara Klingenberg, Maria L. M. Jørgensen, Gert Dandanell, Karen Skriver, Aske Mottelson, and Guido Makransky. 2020. Investigating the effect of teaching as a generative learning strategy when learning through desktop and immersive VR: A media and methods experiment. Br J Educ Technol 51, 6, 2115–2138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13029.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Jake Knapp, John Zeratsky, and Braden Kowitz. 2016. Sprint. How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days, New York, Simon&Schuster Paperbacks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Sang M. Ko, Won S. Chang, and Yong G. Ji. 2013. Usability Principles for Augmented Reality Applications in a Smartphone Environment. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 29, 8, 501–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.722466.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Olya Kudina and Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2019. Ethics from Within: Google Glass, the Collingridge Dilemma, and the Mediated Value of Privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 44, 2, 291–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918793711.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Felix Lauber, Claudius Böttcher, and Andreas Butz. 2014. PapAR. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. AutomotiveUI ’14. ACM, New York, NY, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2667239.2667271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jooho Lee and Soonhee Kim. 2018. Citizens’ e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: Do individual social capital and e-participation management matter? Public Management Review 20, 6, 873–895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1340507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Ulrich Lehner, Matthias Baldauf, Veikko Eranti, Wolfgang Reitberger, and Peter Fröhlich. 2014. Civic engagement meets pervasive gaming. In CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1483–1488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Xinqi Liu, Young-Ho Sohn, and Dong-Won Park. 2018. Application development with vuforia and unity 3D. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 13, 21, 43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Ann Macintosh. 2008. E-Democracy and E-Participation Research in Europe. In Digital Government. E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation, Hsinchun Chen, Lawrence Brandt, Sharon Dawes, Valerie Gregg, Eduard Hovy, Catherine A. Larson, Ann Macintosh and Roland Traunmüller, Eds. Integrated Series in Information Systems, 17. Springer Science+Business Media LLC, Boston, MA, 85–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71611-4_5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Ann Macintosh, Thomas F. Gordon, and Alastair Renton. 2009. Providing Argument Support for E-Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6, 1, 43–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680802662113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Kerry Mallan, Marcus Foth, Ruth Greenaway, and Greg T. Young. 2010. Serious playground: using Second Life to engage high school students in urban planning. Learning, Media and Technology 35, 2, 203–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.494432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Oliver Märker and Josef Wehner. 2011. Online-Online-Bürgerbeteiligung in Kommunen: Anfänge - Aktuelle Verfahren - Weiterführende Fragen. vhw FWS, 4, 201–206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Ank Michels. 2011. Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences 77, 2, 275–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399851.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Michael J. Muller and Allison Druin. 2007. Participatory Design: the Third Space in Hci. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, Andrew Sears and Julie A. Jacko, Eds. CRC Press, 1087–1108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781410615862-68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Tek J. Nam and Woohun Lee. 2003. Integrating hardware and software: Augmented reality based prototyping method for digital products. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, January 2003, 956–957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.766092.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Michael Nebeling and Maximilian Speicher. 2018. The Trouble with Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality Authoring Tools. Adjunct Proceedings - 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR-Adjunct 2018, 333–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2018.00098.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Empowering people - CHI '90. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 249–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Nina Palmy David and Adria Buchanan. 2020. Planning Our Future: Institutionalizing Youth Participation in Local Government Planning Efforts. Planning Theory & Practice 21, 1, 9–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1696981.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Gilberto C. Pereira, Maria C. F. Rocha, and Alenka Poplin. 2012. e-Participation: Social Media and the Public Space. In Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2012, David Hutchison, Takeo Kanade, Josef Kittler, Jon M. Kleinberg, Friedemann Mattern, John C. Mitchell, Moni Naor, Oscar Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, Bernhard Steffen, Madhu Sudan, Demetri Terzopoulos, Doug Tygar, Moshe Y. Vardi, Gerhard Weikum, Beniamino Murgante, Osvaldo Gervasi, Sanjay Misra, Nadia Nedjah, Ana M. A. C. Rocha, David Taniar and Bernady O. Apduhan, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 491–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31125-3_37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Barbara Piga and Valentina Petri. 2017. Envisioning architecture. Space/time/meaning : the proceedings of the 13th Biennial International Conference of the European Architectural Envisioning Association at the Glasgow School of Art, 2017. Mackintosh School of Architecture; School of Simulation and Visualization, Glasgow, Scotland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Lukasz Porwol and Adegboyega Ojo. 2019. Harnessing Virtual Reality for e-Participation. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. ACM Digital Library. Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY,United States, 324–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3325112.3325255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Ruth Potts, Lisa Jacka, and Lachlan H. Yee. 2017. Can we ‘Catch ‘em All’? An exploration of the nexus between augmented reality games, urban planning and urban design. Journal of Urban Design 22, 6, 866–880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1369873.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Jörg Radtke and Sheree M. Saßmannshausen. 2020. Auf dem Weg zur responsiven Demokratie? Online-Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in der Stadtentwicklung als aktiver Link zwischen Kommunalpolitik und BevölkerungMaking democracy respond: Online public participation as a means to reconcile municipal planning wit. Z Politikwiss 30, 2, 329–358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-020-00233-4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Florian Reinwald, Martin Berger, Christop Stoik, Mario Platzer, and Doris Damyanovic. 2014. Augmented Reality at the Service of Participatory Urban Planning and Community Informatics – a case study from Vienna. JoCI 10, 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v10i3.3441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Artan Rexhepi, Sonja Filiposka, and Vladimir Trajkovik. 2018. Youth e-participation as a pillar of sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production 174, 114–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Panagiotis Ritsos, Antonis Gougoulis, and Dennis Ritsos. 2011. Standards for Augmented Reality: a User Experience perspective. łdots Standards Meeting-February 17, 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Gene Rowe and Lynn J. Frewer. 2004. Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29, 4, 512–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Patrycja-Jadwiga Sankowska. 2020. Mixed Realities. Application of Geospatial Augmented Reality in Urban Planning. Case Study: Finding Places. In INCREaSE 2019, Jânio Monteiro, António João Silva, António Mortal, Jaime Aníbal, Manuela Moreira da Silva, Miguel Oliveira and Nelson Sousa, Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 277–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30938-1_23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Jürgen Sauer, Katrin Seibel, and Bruno Rüttinger. 2010. The influence of user expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests. Applied Ergonomics 41, 1, 130–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.06.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Ronald Schroeter, Marcus Foth, and Christine Satchell. 2012. People, Content, Location: Sweet Spotting Urban Screens for Situated Engagement. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. DIS 2012 ; Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, June 11 - 15, 2012. DIS '12. ACM, New York, NY, 146–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto. 2016. Self-Efficacy Theory in Education. In Handbook of motivation at school, Kathryn R. Wentzel and David B. Miele, Eds. Educational psychology handbook series. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, London, 34–54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Narushige Shiode. 2000. Urban Planning, Information Technology, and Cyberspace. Journal of Urban Technology 7, 2, 105–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713684111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. Carlos N. Silva. 2010. Handbook of research on e-planning. ICTs for urban development and monitoring. Information Science Reference, Hershey PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Carlos N. Silva. 2020. Citizen-responsive urban e-planning. Recent developments and critical perspectives. Information Science Reference, Hershey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Ajit Singh and Gabriela Christmann. 2020. Citizen Participation in Digitised Environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial Knowledge in Urban Planning. UP 5, 2, 71–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i2.3030.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Traci Sitzmann and Katherine Ely. 2011. A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: what we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin 137, 3, 421–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Margaret Stout. 2010. Climbing the Ladder of participation: Establishing local policies for participatory practice 15, 46–97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Mandy Tawalbeh, Ralph Riedel, Samuel Horler, and Egon Müller. 2017. Case Studies of Participatory Design. In Advances in production management systems. The path to intelligent, collaborative and sustainable manufacturing ; IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference, APMS 2017, Hamburg, Germany, September 3-7, 2017 ; proceedings, Hermann Lödding, Ralph Riedel, Klaus-Dieter Thoben, Gregor von Cieminski and Dimitris Kiritsis, Eds. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 514. Springer, Cham, 159–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66926-7_19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  92. Mandy Tawalbeh, Ralph Riedel, Samuel Horler, and Egon Müller. 2018. Studies of Participatory Design: Comparison of methodologies in factory planning. IIP’17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Maurizio Teli, Marcus Foth, Mariacristina Sciannamblo, Irina Anastasiu, and Peter Lyle. 2020. Tales of Institutioning and Commoning. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 159–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Sarah-Kristin Thiel. 2016. A Review of Introducing Game Elements to e-Participation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference for E-democracy and Open Government. CeDEM16 : Danube University Krems, Austria, 18-20 May 2016. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, Washington, Tokyo, 3–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CeDEM.2016.14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. Sarah-Kristin Thiel, T. P. Ertiö, and Matthias Baldauf. 2017. Why so serious? The role of gamification on motivation and engagement in e-participation. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 158–181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Sarah-Kristin Thiel and Peter Fröhlich. 2017. Gamification as Motivation to Engage in Location-Based Public Participation? In Progress in Location-Based Services 2016, Georg Gartner and Haosheng Huang, Eds. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 399–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47289-8_20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Sarah-Kristin Thiel and Ulrich Lehner. 07132015. Exploring the effects of game elements in m-participation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2783446.2783587.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Araf O. Turken and Engin E. Eyuboglu. 2021. E-participatory Approaches in Urban Design. JCUA 5, 2, 169–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2021.v5n2-2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. Maaike J. van den Haak, Menno D. de Jong, and Peter J. Schellens. 2003. Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behaviour and Information Technology 22, 5, 339–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0044929031000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  100. Jos van Leeuwen, Klaske Hermans, Arnold Quanjer, Antti Jylhä, and Hanke Nijmans. 2018. Using Virtual Reality to Increase Civic Participation in Designing Public Spaces. In Proceedings of the 18th European conference on digital government, ECDG 2018, Ramon Bouzas-Lorenzo and Andres Cernadas Ramos, Eds. Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, 230–239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Waraporn Viyanon, Thanadon Songsuittipong, Phattarika Piyapaisarn, and Suwanun Sudchid. 2017 // 2017. AR Furniture. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing - IIP'17 // 2017 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing. ACM Press; Association for Computing Machinery, New York, New York, USA, 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3144789.3144825.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Miriam Walker, Leila Takayama, and James A. Landay. 2002. High-Fidelity or Low-Fidelity, Paper or Computer? Choosing Attributes when Testing Web Prototypes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 46, 5, 661–665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204600513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Alexander Wilson, Mark Tewdwr-Jones, and Rob Comber. 2017. Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: App development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 45, 1, 239980831771251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317712515.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. WRLD3D. Augmented Reality and 3D Maps. Retrieved February 9, 2021 from www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/augmented-reality-3d-maps.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Volker Wulf, Markus Rohde, Volkmar Pipek, and Gunnar Stevens. 2011. Engaging with practices. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '11. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958902.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. Anthony GO Yeh. 1999. Urban planning and GIS. Geographical information systems, 2, 877–888.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Muhammad Yusuf, Mochammad K. Sophan, Arif Muntasa, Nurwahyu Alamsyah, Haythem Nakkas, and Putri P. Sari. 2020. E-government learning media through augmented reality technology. Bull.Socinf.The.App 4, 1, 12–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31763/businta.v4i1.258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. Nanxuan Zheng. 2019. New possible applications of the augmented-reality in urban design. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 267, 52007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/267/5/052007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. Hans-Dieter Zimmermann. 2016. Youth e-participation: Lessons Learned from an Ongoing Project in Switzerland. In 29th Bled eConference: Digital Economy, Bled, Slovenia, June 19-22, 2016, 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

(auto-classified)
  1. Citizen-Centered Design in Urban Planning: How Augmented Reality can be used in Citizen Participation Processes

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    Get this Publication

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    View Table of Contents
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!