Abstract
Engaging citizens in urban planning has the potential to generate effective ideas to reinvent our cities. Particularly, designing easy to grasp and effective tools for co-creating meaningful urban spaces remains a significant challenge and an emerging need. Such tools that can involve the community in an intelligent manner are in strong demand. It is, however, required to design, develop, and implement well-executed engagement tools that open the horizons of evaluating and responding to urban-related problems while involving city councils, architects, ICT developers, and urban planners. In this chapter, a framework aiming to investigate future forms of citizen involvement within urban planning activities is prefigured. It addresses the research aim to present and discuss technology-driven civic engagement in the planning process via a toolset and the outcomes of a market study for this tool. Furthermore, it identifies and discusses the gaps between four main existing groups of urban planning software; physical planning tools, physical/civic engagement tools, civic scenario planner tools, and data analysis methods and how to bridge these gaps. In addition to these, it highlights the potential of such urban planning participatory tools to generate possible socioeconomic impacts and concludes by assessing (1) the degree to which the technology creates an inclusive environment to exchange and implement urban planning related ideas and (2) the extent to which such tools could lead to an integrated and coherent engaging method for citizen engagement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2004) DRAFT: user-centered design. Encyclop Human Comp Inter 37(4):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2010-1109
Al-Kodmany K (1999) Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation, and evaluation. Landsc Urban Plan 45(1):37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Awan N, Schneider T, Till J (2013) Spatial agency: other ways of doing architecture. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315881249
Bamberger M (1991) The importance of community participation. Public Adm Dev 11(3):281–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230110317
Barcellini F, Prost L, Cerf M (2015) Designers’ and users’ roles in participatory design: what is actually co-designed by participants? Appl Ergon 50(March):31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.02.005
Ben-Joseph E et al (2001) Urban simulation and the luminous planning table: bridging the gap between the digital and the tangible. J Plan Educ Res 21(2):196–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0102100207
Boyko CT, Cooper R, Davey C (2005) Sustainability and the urban design process. Proc Insti Civil Eng Eng Sustain 158(3):119–125. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2005.158.3.119
Brabham DC (2010) Moving the crowd at threadless: motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. Inf Comm Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691181003624090
Bryson JM et al (2013) Designing public participation processes. Public Adm Rev 73(1):23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x
Butler J, Lidwell W, Holden K (2007) Universal principles of design. Educ Technol Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9036-7
Carmona M (2010) Contemporary public space, part two: classification. J Urban Des 15(2):157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111
Carmona M (2015) Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative. J Urban 8(4):373–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.909518
Chowdhury S, Schnabel MA (2018) An algorithmic methodology to predict urban form: an instrument for urban design, (May)
Cimerman B (2000) Participatory design in architecture: can computers help ? In Proceedings of the participatory design conference, (December), pp 40–48
Cirulis A, Brigis K (2013) 3D outdoor augmented reality for architecture and urban planning. Procedia Comp Sci Elsev 25:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.009
Claridge T (2004) Designing S O C I a L C a P I Ta L Sensitive Pa R T I C I Pat I O N, (June)
Cleaver F (1999) Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. J Int Dev 11(4):597–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199906)11:4<597::AID-JID610>3.0.CO;2-Q
Cockey SM (1955) Software for facilitating the creation of parametric urban resource models. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063783414100321
Da Silva RC, Morim LM (2010) Parametric urbanism: emergence, limits and perspectives of a new trend in urban design based on parametric design systems. V!Rus (3)
Daniel D, Jane B, Mark B (2011) Untangling parametric schemata: enhancing collaboration through modular programming introduction: why parametric modelling can be difficult. CAAD futures 2011: designing together, ULg, pp 55–68
Danker F, Jones O (2014) Combining augmented reality and building information. In Proceedings of the 32nd eCAADe conference, 2, pp 525–536
Davidoff P (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American institute of planners, 1965. City Read. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
De Smet A, Pak B, Schoonjans Y (2019) Solidary mobile housing live project. In: G Boi
Desouza KC, Bhagwatwar A (2014) Technology-enabled participatory platforms for civic engagement: the case of U.S. cities. J Urban Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.954898
Dias N, Curwell S, Bichard E (2014) The current approach of Urban Design and its implications for sustainable urban development. Proced Econ Finan Elsev 18(September):497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00968-X
Dongyoun S, Muller Arisona S Schmitt G (2011) A crowdsourcing urban simulation platform using mobile devices and social sensing. CAAD futures 2011, proceeding(figure 1), pp 233–246
Evans-Cowley J, Hollander J (2010) The new generation of public participation: internet-based participation tools. Plan Pract Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
Figen Gül L, Halıcı SM (2015) Collaborative design with Mobile augmented reality. Complexity & simplicity – Proceedings of the 34th eCAADe conference, 1, pp 493–500
Gallo G, Pellitteri G (2018) Luigi Moretti, from history to parametric architecture. In Proceedings of the 23rd Internafional conference on computer-aided architectural design research in Asia CAADRIA, pp 209–214
Gordon E, Koo G (2008) Placeworlds: using virtual worlds to foster civic engagement. Space Cult 11(3):204–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331208319743
Gün A, Demir Y, Pak B (2019) Urban design empowerment through ICT-based platforms in Europe. Int J Urban Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1604250
Gun A, Demir Y, Pak B (2020) An ICT-integrated participatory design model for urban transformation areas under disaster risk: the case of Istanbul. Int J Urban Sust Dev 1(25). https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1740707
Hanzl M (2007) Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Des Stud 28(3):289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003
Helsper EJ (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society report
Horelli L (n.d.) New approaches to urban planning
Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Pub Admin Rev:55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x
Ishii H (2007) Tangible user interfaces, CHI 2006 workshop, pp 1–17
Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits, (September), pp 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258715
Kaftan M et al (2011) Informing architecture and urban modeling with real-world data on 3D tangible interfaces and augmented displays, pp 226–233
Kanji N, Greenwood L (2001) Participatory approaches to research and development, pp 1–62
Katz P, Scully V Jr, Bressi TW (1994) The new urbanism: toward an architecture of community. McGraw-Hill, New York
Kelly D (2001) Community participation in rangeland management : a report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)
Kelly K, Van Vlaenderen H (1995) Evaluating participation processes in community development. Eval Program Plann
Kraft P, Bansler J (1994) The collective resource approach: the scandinavian experience. Scand J Inf Syst 6(1):4
Llewelyn, David D (2007) Urban design compendium: urban design principles. Design 125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00994480.1973.10732231
Maquil V, Psik T, Wagner I (2008) The ColorTable: a design story. Proceedings of TEI’08, pp. 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347412
Meeus B, Pak B (2018) Reflections on the counter-mapping of urban “arrival neighborhoods” through Geoweb 2.0 in Brussels and Ghent. In: Participatory design theory, Routledge research in planning and urban design: Routledge. Routledge, New York, pp 40–55. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110332-4
Miessen M (2017a) Crossbenching: towards a proactive mode of participation as a critical spatial practice, Doutorado
Miessen M (2017b) Crossbenching subtitle: towards a proactive mode of participation as a critical. University of London
Morton D (2001) Augmented reality in architectural studio learning : how augmented reality can be used as an exploratory tool in the design learning journey, 1, pp. 343–356
Mosadeghi R et al (2015) ‘Comparison of fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Comp Environ Urban Syst Elsev 49:54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.10.001
Moughtin C et al (2003) Urban design: method and techniques. Routledge
Mubita A, Libati M, Mulonda M (2017) The importance and limitations of participation in development projects and Programmes. Eur Sci J 13(5):238. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n5p238
Muther R, Halles L (2015) Systematic layout planning – a total system of layout planning
Pak B, Verbeke J (2013) Redesigning the urban design studio: two learning experiments. J Learn Des. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v6i3.160
Pak B, Chua A, Vande Moere A (2017) FixMyStreet Brussels: socio-demographic inequality in crowdsourced civic participation. J Urban Technol 2(24):65–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2016.1270047
Pateman C (1976) Pateman participoation and democratic theory
Price S, Mylius B (1991) Social analysis and community participation: guidelines and activity cycle checklist. Australian International Development Assistance Bureau. Appraisals, Evaluation and Sectoral Studies Branch
Raworth K (2010) State of the world 2003: Progress towards a sustainable society, 20th edn, pp 1–240. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776257
Roberts M, Greed C (2001) Approaching urban design: the design process, vol 5. Routledge
Rodrigues F et al (2012) Augmented reality and tangible user interfaces integration for enhancing the user experience. In Proceedings – VRCAI 2012: 11th ACM SIGGRAPH international conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry, (December), pp. 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/2407516.2407536
Ruohomaki T et al (2018) Smart city platform enabling digital twin. In 9th international conference on intelligent systems 2018: theory, research and innovation in applications, IS 2018 - proceedings, (March), pp. 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1109/IS.2018.8710517
Sabri S et al (2019) A multi-dimensional analytics platform to support planning and design for liveable and sustainable urban environment. In International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences - ISPRS archives, 42(4/W15), pp. 75–80. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W15-75-2019
Saleh M, Al-Hagla K (2012) Parametric urban comfort envelope an approach toward a responsive sustainable urban morphology. Waset Org 6(11):563–570
Sandercock L (1997) Towards cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities
Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Sanders EB-N, Brandt E, Binder T (2010) A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900476
Sanoff H (2000) Community participation methods in design and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 50(4):270–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(00)00063-3
Saxton GD, Oh O, Kishore R (2013) Rules of crowdsourcing: models, issues, and systems of control. Inf Syst Manag 30(1):2–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2013.739883
Sayers M, Trebeck K (2015) The UK Doughnut: a framework for environmental sustainability and social justice, Oxfam Research Reports, (February), p. 76. Available at http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/the-uk-doughnut-a-framework-for-environmental-sustainability-and-social-justice-344550 (Downloaded October 12, 2016)
Schön D (1987) A review of educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass (San Francisco, 1987) ISBN 1-55542-220-9
Schubert G, Bratoev I, Petzold F (2017) Visual programming meets tangible interfaces - generating city simulations for decision support in early design stages generating city simulations for decision support in early design stages, (September)
Schumacher P (2008) Parametricism as style-parametricist manifesto
Senbel M, Church SP (2011) Design empowerment. J Plan Educ Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x11417830
Shen BJ, Wu Y, Liu H (2002) Urban planning using augmented reality. Manager 127(3):118–125
Steiniger S, Poorazizi ME, Hunter AJS (2016) Planning with citizens: implementation of an e-planning platform and analysis of research needs. Urban Plann 1(2):49–64. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i2.607
Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. Illustrate. Edited by Esri Press
Toker Z (2007) Recent trends in community design: the eminence of participation. Des Stud 28(3):309–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.008
Towers G (1995) Building democracy. Edited by Universtiy Press
Turner JFC (1963) Architectural design
Vicente MR, Novo A (2014) An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens’ online engagement. Gov Inf Q. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.12.006
Wagner, I. et al. (2009) Supporting community engagement in the city: urban planning in the MR tent. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies, pp. 185–194
Wang W et al (2015) Parametric studies of urban morphologies of high density cities and their air ventilation performance under neutral and unstable atmospheric conditions using advanced large-eddy simulations. In 9th international conference on urban climate jointly with 12th symposium on the urban environment, (July), pp. 1–18
White A (1981) Community participation in water and sanitation: concepts, strategies and methods. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Hague
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Daher, E., Maktabifard, M., Kubicki, S., Decorme, R., Pak, B., Desmaris, R. (2021). Tools for Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning. In: Lazaroiu, G.C., Roscia, M., Dancu, V.S. (eds) Holistic Approach for Decision Making Towards Designing Smart Cities. Future City, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85566-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85566-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85565-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85566-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)