Advertisement

Mixed Reality Media-Enabled Public Participation in Urban Planning

A Literature Review
  • Mario Wolf
  • Heinrich SöbkeEmail author
  • Florian Wehking
Chapter
  • 53 Downloads
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

Public participation in urban planning processes is affected by what is known as the “paradox of participation”: in early planning phases, when there is still sufficient room for decision-making, only a few citizens participate, while in late phases, when decisions can usually only be revised at great expense, a high level of public participation can be observed. The resulting delayed and more costly planning processes could be partially prevented by shifting public participation activities from late to early phases of planning processes. The reasons for the low level of participation of citizens in early planning phases are seen as the lack of clarity and the absence of concern due to a high level of abstraction. In this article, we examine the approach of using Mixed Reality (MR) media to remedy the paradox of participation in planning processes. Methodically, the context of MR media in urban planning is developed initially. Then the results of a literature study on MR media in urban planning are presented. Finally, the advantages of the use of MR media in urban planning contexts are summarized. In summary, MR media appear to be a promising approach for resolving the paradox of participation. However, future work should systematically structure MR media in urban planning according to characteristics supported, such as application contexts, planning objectives and modes of collaboration.

Keywords

Mixed reality Urban planning Paradox of participation Beteiligungsparadoxon Visualization Accessibility 

References

  1. 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
  2. Allen, M., Regenbrecht, H., & Abbott, M. (2011). Smart-phone augmented reality for public participation in urban planning. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, Nov 28, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. Bartosh, A., & Clark, L. (2019). Mixed reality visualizations of urban data. Technology|Architecture + Design, 3(1), 89–101.Google Scholar
  4. BBR. (2000). Stadtentwicklung und Städtebau in Deutschland: Ein Überblick (Urban development and urban planning in germany: An overview). Bonn. Retrieved Nov 16, 2018, from https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/Abgeschlossen/Berichte/2000_2005/Downloads/Bd5Stadtentwicklung.pdf.
  5. Beckett, K. L., & Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Augmented by reality: The pedagogical praxis of urban planning as a pathway to ecological thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BMUB. (2007). Leipzig Charta zur nachhaltigen europäischen Stadt (Leipzig charter for a sustainable European City). Berlin. Retrieved Oct 27, 2018 from https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Nationale_Stadtentwicklung/leipzig_charta_de_bf.pdf.
  7. Broll, W., Lindt, I., Ohlenburg, J., Wittkämper, M., Yuan, C., Novotny, T. … Strothmann, A. (2004). Arthur: A collaborative augmented environment for architectural design and urban planning. Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting, 1(1).Google Scholar
  8. Broschart, D., & Zeile, P. (2015). Architecture: Augmented reality in architecture and urban planning. In E. Buhmann & M. Pietsch (Eds.), Peer reviewed proceedings of digital landscape architecture 2015 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences: International Digital Landscape Architecture (DLA) Conference on Information Technologies in Landscape Architecture, held in June 4–6, 2015 at the Anhalt University of Applied Sciences Campus in Dessau, Germany (pp. 111–118). Berlin, Germany: Wichmann.Google Scholar
  9. Carozza, L., Tingdahl, D., Bosché, F., & van Gool, L. (2014). Markerless vision-based augmented reality for urban planning. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development, 11(4), 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cristie, V., Berger, M., Bus, P., Kumar, A., & Klein, B. (2015). CityHeat. In Proceedings of Siggraph Asia 2015 (pp. 6–10). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Drettakis, G., Roussou, M., Reche, A., & Tsingos, N. (2007). Design and evaluation of a real-world virtual environment for architecture and urban planning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 16(3), 318–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du, G., Degbelo, A., & Kray, C. (2019). User-generated gestures for voting and commenting on immersive displays in urban planning. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 3(2), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falco, E. (2016). Digital community planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 5(2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. HBS. (2014). Stadt beteiligt: Wie gute Beteiligung verankert wird. Fachtagung in Berlin am 20./21.6.2014. Retrieved from Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Bildungswerk für alternative Kommunalpolitik e.V., Stiftung Mitarbeit website: https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/stadtbeteiligt.pdf.
  17. Hirschner, R. (2017). Beteiligungsparadoxon in Planungsund Entscheidungsverfahren (Paradox of participation in planning and decision-making processes). Forum Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung, 9(6), 323–326.Google Scholar
  18. Holm, A., & Gebhardt, D. (Eds.). (2011). Initiativen für ein Recht auf Stadt: Theorie und Praxis städtischer Aneignungen (Initiatives for a right to the city: Theory and practice of urban appropriations). Hamburg, Germany: VSA.Google Scholar
  19. Imottesjo, H., & Kain, J. H. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ishii, H., Ben-Joseph, E., Underkoffler, J., Yeung, L., Chak, D., Kanji, Z., & Piper, B. (2002). Augmented urban planning workbench: Overlaying drawings, physical models and digital simulation. In ISMAR ’02, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (pp. 203–212). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  21. Jamei, E., Mortimer, M., Seyedmahmoudian, M., Horan, B., & Stojcevski, A. (2017). Investigating the role of virtual reality in planning for sustainable smart cities. Sustainability, 9(11), 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang, L., Maffei, L., & Masullo, M. (2016). Developing an online virtual reality application for e-participation in urban sound planning. In Proceedings of EuroRegio 2016. EuroRegio 2016, 13–15 June, Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  23. Lück, A., & Nyga, I. (2018). Experiences of stakeholder participation in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) processes for water infrastructure. Urban Water Journal, 15(6), 508–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maquil, V., Psik, T., Wagner, I., & Wagner, M. (2007). Expressive interactions—supporting collaboration in urban design. In T. Gross & K. Inkpen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 69–78). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  25. McIntyre, M. H. (2006). A literature review of the social, economic and environmental impact of architecture and design (Research findings No. 19/July 2006). Edinburgh. Retrieved Oct 17, 2018 from https://www.culturehive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Scot-Exec-architecture.pdf.
  26. Mestre, D., Fuchs, P., Berthoz, A., & Vercher, J. L. (2006). Immersion et presence (Immersion and presence). Le traité de la réalité virtuelle. Paris, France: Ecole des Mines de Paris (pp. 309–338).Google Scholar
  27. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Fumio, K. (1994). A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In SPIE Proceedings Volume 2351: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies (pp. 282–292).Google Scholar
  28. Nanz, P., & Fritsche, M. (2012). Handbuch Bürgerbeteiligung: Verfahren und Akteure, Chancen und Grenzen (Citizen participation handbook: Procedures and actors, opportunities and limitations). Bonn, Germany: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung.Google Scholar
  29. PPS. (2019). What makes a successful place? Retrieved Jul 26, 2019 from https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat.
  30. Rehberg, M., & Hoffmann, A. (2014). Methoden räumlicher Planung und partizipative Technologievorausschau—Chancen einer interdisziplinären Anknüpfung? (Methods of spatial planning and participatory technology foresight—chances of an interdisciplinary connection?) In P. Küpper, M. Levin-Keitel, F. Maus, P. Müller, S. Reimann, M. Sondermann, K. Stock, & T. S. Wiegand (Eds.), Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Vol. 8. Raumentwicklung 3.0—Gemeinsam die Zukunft der räumlichen Planung gestalten: 15. Junges Forum der ARL 6. bis 8. Juni 2012 in Hannover (pp. 222–234). Hannover, Germany: Verlag der ARL.Google Scholar
  31. Reinert, A., & Sinnig, H. (1997). Mobilisierung der Kompetenz der Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Das Bürgergutachten ÜSTRA zum öffentlichen Nahverkehr in Hannover (Mobilising the competence of citizens. The citizens’ report ÜSTRA on public transport in Hanover). In T. Bühler (Ed.), Bürgerbeteiligung und Demokratie vor Ort (pp. 143–152). Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  32. Rösener, B. (2011). Bürger beteiligen – Worauf es ankommt (Involving citizens—what matters). Retrieved Aug 23, 2018 from www.planung-neu-denken.de.
  33. Schubert, D. (2015). Stadtplanung—Wandlungen einer Disziplin und zukünftige Herausforderungen (Urban planning—Changes in a discipline and future challenges). In A. Flade (Ed.), Stadt und Gesellschaft im Fokus aktueller Stadtforschung: Konzepte-Herausforderungen-Perspektiven (Vol. 61, pp. 121–176). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  34. Selle, K. (2013). Über Bürgerbeteiligung hinaus: Stadtentwicklung als Gemeinschaftsaufgabe?: Analysen und Konzepte (Beyond citizen participation: Urban development as a joint task? Analyses and concepts.). Edition Stadt-Entwicklung. Detmold, Germany: Rohn.Google Scholar
  35. SenSW. (2012). Handbuch zur Partizipation (Handbook on participation). Retrieved Aug 12, 2018 from https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/soziale_stadt/partizipation/download/Handbuch_Partizipation.pdf.
  36. Shen, J., Wu, Y., & Liu, H. (2001). Urban planning using augmented reality. Journal of urban planning and development, 127(3), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silva, C. N. (2010). The E-planning paradigm—Theory, methods and tools: An overview. In C. N. Silva (Ed.), Handbook of research on E-Planning: ICTs for urban development and monitoring (pp. 1–14). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Söbke, H., & Londong, J. (2014). Promoting innovative water infrastructure systems: Simulation games as virtual prototypes. In J. Lohaus (Ed.), Proceedings of 17th International EWA Symposium “WatEnergyResources—Water, Energy and Resources: Innovative Options and Sustainable Solutions” during IFAT, May 5–9, 2014 (Vol. 3, p. 5). Hennef: European Water Association.Google Scholar
  39. SPON. (2007). Dresdner Elbtal: Günter Grass protestiert gegen Brücke (Dresden Elbe Valley: Günter Grass protests against bridge). Retrieved Oct 27, 2018 from https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/dresdner-elbtal-guenter-grass-protestiert-gegen-bruecke-a-521993.html.
  40. StN. (2018). Mahnwache gegen Stuttgart 21: Acht Jahre Protest und immer noch nicht müde (Stuttgart 21: Eight years of protest and still not tired). Retrieved May 13, 2019 from https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.mahnwache-gegen-stuttgart-21-acht-jahre-protest-und-immer-noch-nicht-muede.c4177ab9-b252-4d84-95ce-271d5556e25d.html.
  41. Strom, G. S. (1975). On the apparent paradox of participation: A new proposal. American Political Science Review, 69(3), 908–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Universität Leipzig. (2013). Optionen moderner Bürgerbeteiligung bei Infrastrukturprojekten: Ableitungen für eine verbesserte Beteiligung auf Basis von Erfahrungen und Einstellungen von Bürgern, Kommunen und Unternehmen (Options for modern citizen participation in infrastructure projects: Derivations for improved participation based on experiences and attitudes of citizens, municipalities and companies). Retrieved May 13, 2019 from https://www.wifa.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/KOZE/Downloads/Optionen_moderner_Bu%CC%88rgerbeteiligungen_bei_Infrastrukturprojekten_.pdf.
  43. van Leeuwen, J. P., Hermans, K., Jylhä, A., Quanjer, A. J., & Nijman, H. (2018). Effectiveness of virtual reality in participatory urban planning: A case study. In MAB18, Proceedings of the 4th Media Architecture Biennale Conference (pp. 128–136). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  44. Zender, R., Knoth, A. H., Fischer, M. H., & Lucke, U. (2019). Potentials of virtual reality as an instrument for research and education. I-Com, 18(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Bauhaus-Institute for Infrastructure Solutions (b.is)WeimarGermany

Personalised recommendations