Digital Tools for Capturing User’s Needs on Urban Open Spaces: Drawing Lessons from Cyberparks Project

  • Carlos Smaniotto Costa
  • Alfonso Bahillo Martínez
  • Fernando J. Álvarez
  • Ina Šuklje Erjavec
  • Marluci Menezes
  • Montserrat Pallares-Barbera
Chapter
Part of the Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering book series (SPRTRCIENG)

Abstract

The chapter discusses how ICT can be used to enhance the understanding of the relationship between space, users and social practices. As an example of possible use of ICT for capturing and better understanding user’s needs, the new digital tool WAY Cyberparks is presented and discussed. A “cyberpark” is defined as a new type of urban landscape where nature and ICTs blend together to generate hybrid experiences and enhance quality of life. The WAY Cyberparks digital tool consists of a smart phone application, server/cloud and web services. Through the experiences from testing it in selected urban open spaces in Barcelona, Lisbon and Ljubljana opportunities are presented and lessons are drawn about relevant aspects of the ICT towards building a more participatory and collaborative process in planning of public spaces. A relevant aspect of the ICT lays in their ability to enhance communication with (potential) users, transforming the production of public open spaces into an interactive process, and enabling creative community participation and empowerment. Furthermore, some challenges of the increasing penetration of digital technologies devices (smart phones, smart watches, tablets, etc.) within the broader context of their use in public urban open spaces such as parks, gardens, squares, plazas are discussed, together with the consequences of this interweaving, which is growing at a rapid pace, unfolds research needs in the future.

References

  1. Bahillo, A., Golicnik Marušic, B., Perallos, A. (2015). A mobile application as an unobtrusive tool for behavioural mapping in public spaces. In Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence. LNCS, Springer (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  2. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettanini, T. (1982). Espaço e Ciências Humanas. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
  4. Ferrara, L. (1993). Olhar Periférico. São Paulo: EDUSP/FAPESP.Google Scholar
  5. Fyfe, N. R. (Ed.). (1998). Images of the street—Planning, identity and control in public space. Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar
  6. Grech, G. (2015). Cities as platforms. Retrieved on August 10, 2015 from http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/07/cities-as-platforms
  7. GreenKeys Project. (2008). GreenKeys @ Your city—A guide for urban green quality. IOER, Dresden. Retrieved from www.greenkeys-project.net
  8. Hicks, L., & Higgins, J. (2010). Exergaming: Syncing physical activity and learning. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 24(1), 18–21. doi:10.1080/08924562.2010.10590908
  9. Ioannidis, K., Smaniotto Costa, C., Šuklje-Erjavec, I., Menezes, M., Bahillo Martínez, A. (2015). The lure of CyberPark—Synergistic outdoor interactions between public spaces, users and locative technologies. In I. Theona & C. Dimitris (Eds.), Hybrid city: Data to the people (pp. 272–281). Athens: URIACGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). Experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lévy, F. P., Segaud, M. (1983). Anthropologie de L’Espace. Paris: Centre, Georges Pompidou/CCI.Google Scholar
  13. Menezes, M. (2003). Da construção social do espaço à prevenção socio-urbanística. Urbanismo Preventivo, Colecção Fórum, 6. Lisboa: URBE.Google Scholar
  14. Menezes, M. (2010). Ser urbano em espaço público: Captar a (in)visibilidade das práticas de (in)sustentabilidade urbana. In M. F.Gomes & M. J. Barbosa (Eds.). Cidade e Sustentabilidade: Mecanismos de Controle e Resistência (pp. 41–58). Rio de Janeiro: Terra Vermelha.Google Scholar
  15. Menezes, M. (2012). L’espace du social dans un monde de (multi)représentations socio-spatiales: meta-réflexion méthodologique à partir d’un regard géo-anthropologique. In C. Cerreti, I. Dumont, & M. Tabusi (Eds.), Geografia Sociale e Democrazia – La Sfida della Communicazione (pp. 87–94). Roma: Aracne Editrice.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, P. (2015). The complete integrated city. Retrieved on November 19, 2015 from http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/Resources/1_OpenSpaceSystems/Open_Space_Systems/BarcelonaCaseStudy.pdf
  17. Pallares-Barbera, M., Badia, A., & Duch, J. (2011). Cerda and Barcelona: The need for a new city and service provision. Urbani izziv Urban Challenge, 2(22), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Silberberg, S., Lorah, K., Disbrow, R., Muessig, A. (2013). Places in the making: How placemaking builds places and communities. Retrieved on October 15, 2015 from http://dusp.mit.edu/cdd/project/placemaking
  19. Smaniotto Costa, C. (2012). De quintas a parques. Visitando os Parques da Quinta das Conchas e da Quinta dos Lilases em Lisboa. Arquitextos (pp. 1–11). www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/arquitextos/13.146/4429
  20. Smaniotto Costa, C. (2014). Can we change processes in our cities? Reflections on the role of urban mobility in strengthening sustainable green infrastructures. Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering, 2(2), 141–155.Google Scholar
  21. Smaniotto Costa, C., Menezes, M., & Mateus, D. (2014). How would tourists use green spaces? Case studies in Lisbon. Entretextos (Vol. 52). Lisbon. www.ceied.ulusofona.pt/pt/investigacao/publicacoes/entretextos
  22. Šuklje Erjavec, I. (1994). Relationship between form and function in landscape architecture (Master of Science Thesis M.SC.). Department of Landscape Architecture, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  23. Šuklje Erjavec I. (2001). Overlooked potentials of open spaces—New types and categories of urban landscapes. Urbani izziv 2, Prenova mesta - odprti prostor, no 12, Ljubljana: UPIRS.Google Scholar
  24. Šuklje Erjavec, I. (2010). Designing an urban park as a contemporary user-friendly place. In B. Golicnik Marušić & M. Nikšič (Eds.), Human cities—Celebrating public space (pp. 39–51). Oostkamp: Stichting Kunstboek.Google Scholar
  25. Šuklje Erjavec, I. (2012). Pomen in možnosti uporabe zunanjega prostora šol v vzgojno-izobraževalnem procesu. Sodob pedagog 63(1), 156–174.Google Scholar
  26. Šuklje Erjavec, I., & Goličnik, B. (2006). Potrebe, navade in pričakovanja prebivalcev v stanovanjskih krajinah. In V. D. Gazvoda & M. Simoneti (ur.), Stanovanjske krajine: trendi, perspektive : zbornik predavanj in prispevkov ob Konferenci Stanovanjske krajine, Ljubljana (pp. 34–37). Ljubljana: BF, Oddelek za krajinsko arhitekturo, Trajekt, zavod za prostorsko kulturo.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson, C. W., & Travlou, P. (Eds.). (2007). Open space: People space. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Tschumi, B. (1983). Parc de la Villette. Paris: Tschumi Architects.Google Scholar
  30. Turner, M. (2004). Urban parks as partners in youth development. In: Beyond recreation—A broader view of urban park (pp. 1–7). The Urban Institute, The Wallace Foundation. doi:10.1037/e688712011-001
  31. UNO. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved on October 15, 2015 from www.un.org
  32. Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington: The Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Wilkins, K., Obregon, R., & Tufte, T. (2014). The handbook of development communication and social change. Wiley,. doi:10.1002/9781118505328.ch0 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Smaniotto Costa
    • 1
  • Alfonso Bahillo Martínez
    • 2
  • Fernando J. Álvarez
    • 3
  • Ina Šuklje Erjavec
    • 4
  • Marluci Menezes
    • 5
  • Montserrat Pallares-Barbera
    • 6
  1. 1.CeiED Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Education and DevelopmentUniversidade LusófonaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of DeustoBilbaoSpain
  3. 3.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ExtremaduraBadajozSpain
  4. 4.Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of SloveniaLjubljanaSlovenia
  5. 5.National Laboratory of Civil EngineeringLisbonPortugal
  6. 6.Geography DepartmentUniversidad Autònoma de BarcelonaCerdanyola, BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations