Virtual Worlds as Support Tools for Public Engagement in Urban Design

  • Anja Jutraz
  • Tadeja Zupancic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


The purpose of this chapter is to show how important it is to use visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in creating smart cities. The chapter focuses on exploring people’s opinions with regard to urban design, and on exploring new media and digital tools for public engagement. More specifically, it focuses on exploring the potential of using virtual worlds in the process of urban design from the first stages of the design process to the construction and maintenance phases. Quantitative and qualitative research methods have been used for the purposes of this chapter. The Terf virtual world is explored as a laboratory for interdisciplinary collaboration in urban design as well as an interface allowing involvement of different actors within a public participatory process. The final part of this chapter offers guidelines for future development of support tools for public engagement, especially concerning the Terf virtual world, and their potential use by municipalities.


Virtual World Public Participation Smart City Building Information Modeling Public Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research project was carried out in co-operation with the company 3D ICC Immersive Collaboration, and the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) supported it. The research was part of Ph.D research at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture. We would like to thank Julie LeMoine and Ron Teitelbaum from the 3D ICC Immersive Collaboration for their assistance and for the opportunity to explore and work in Terf, an immersive virtual environment.


  1. 3D Immersive Collaboration Consulting. (2014). Immersive Terf. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  2. Acland, A. (2012). Dialogue by design: A handbook of public and stakeholder engagement. London, Dialogue by design. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  3. Al-Douri, F., Clayton, M., & Abrams R. (2001). The impact of 3D digital modeling on 3D design aspects in urban design plans. eCAADe23, Conference Proceedings, pp. 331–340.Google Scholar
  4. Al-kodmany, K. (2002). Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander, C. (2007). The timeless way. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bainbridge, W. S. (2010). Online worlds: Convergence of the real and the virtual. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlett Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis. (2014). CASA. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  8. Burton, E., & Mitchell, M. (2006). Inclusive urban design: Streets for life. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buscher, V., Doody, L., Webb, M., & Aoun, C. (2014). Urban mobility in the smart city age. London: Schneider Electric, ARUP, The Climate Group.Google Scholar
  10. CABE, DETR. (2001). The value of urban design: A research project commissioned by CABE and DETR to examine the value added by good urban design. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Carmona, M. (2010). Public places—urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Cloud cities. (2014).!/. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  13. de Roo, G., & Silva, E. A. (2010). A planner’s encounter with complexity. Burlington, VA: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Cullen, G. (2007). The urban design reader. London, New Yok, Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Future Cities ETH. (2014). Accessed December 10, 2014.
  16. Gann, D. (2014). Smart London Plan. London.Google Scholar
  17. Haller, C. (2009). Cross-media public participation. Denver: Place Matters.Google Scholar
  18. Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunt, J. G. (2006). Forms of participation in urban redevelopment projects: The differing roles of public and stakeholder contributions to design decision making processes. In J. P. Leeuwen & H. J. P. Timmermans (Eds.), Innovations in design & decision support systems in architecture and urban planning (pp. 375–390). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, Q. (2006). Virtual-Communities, virtual settlements and cyber-archaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3).Google Scholar
  21. Jupp, E. (2008). The feeling of participation: Everyday spaces and urban change. Geoforum, 39, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jutraž, A. (2013). Sistem vizualnih digitalnih orodij za participacijo splošne javnosti pri prostorskem načrtovanju = Visual digital system of tools for public participation in urban design. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  23. Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: The world in the wires. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Lenarčič, B. (2002). Fizično vs. virtualno mesto. Dissertation, University of Ljubljana. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  25. MFE/NZ. (2005). The value of urban design: The economic, environmental and social benefits of urban design. New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment.Google Scholar
  26. Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NLA. (2014). Smarter London: How digital technologies are shaping the city (NLA Insight Study). London: NLA London’s Centre for the Built Environment.Google Scholar
  28. OULO 3D. (2014). Retrieved January 01, 2014, from Accessed December 10, 2014.
  29. Panagopoulos, T., Andrade, R. R., & Barreira, A. P. (2009). Citizen participation in city planning and public decision assisted with ontologies and 3D semantics. In A. Rocha, F. Restivo, L. Reis & S. Torrão (Eds.), 4th Iberic conference of systems and information technologies (pp. 167–172). Portugal: Póvoa de Varzim.Google Scholar
  30. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and Department of the Environment. (1996). Quality of urban design: A study on the involvement of private property decision-makers in urban design. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
  31. Saad-sulonen, J. (2005). Mediaattori—Urban Mediator: A hybrid infrastructure for neighborhoods. Media Lab: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  32. Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2090–2101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Senbel, M., & Church, S. P. (2011). Design empowerment: The limits of accessible visualization media in neighborhood densification. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(4), 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SIM Lab Vienna. (2014). Accessed December 10, 2014.
  35. Slotterback, C. S. (2011). Planners’ perspectives on using technology in participatory processes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(3), 468–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smarter Better Cities. (2014). Accessed December 10, 2014.
  37. Smith, A. H. (2003). Digitally distributed urban environments: The prospects for online planning. University College London. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  38. Smith, A., Dodge, M., & Doyle, S. (1998). Visual communication in urban planning and urban design. London: UCL.Google Scholar
  39. Stiles, R. (2007). A guideline for making space: Joint strategy activity 3.3. Dunaj: TU Wien and UrbSpace.Google Scholar
  40. Strehovec, J. (1992). Umetnost virtualnih strojev (pp. 150–151). Časopis Za Kritiko Znanosti XX: Virtualna Resničnost.Google Scholar
  41. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  42. UCLA. (2014). Urban simulation team. Accessed December 10, 2014.
  43. Vandell, K. D., & Lane, J. S. (1989). The economics of architecture findings and urban design: Some preliminary economics. Journal of Real Estate, 17(2), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whyte, J. (2010). Virtual reality and the built environment. London and New York: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  45. Yeang, L. D. (2000). Urban design compendium. United Kingdom: English Partnerships.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations