Spatial Game for Negotiations and Consensus Building in Urban Planning: YouPlaceIt!

Part of the Advances in Geographic Information Science book series (AGIS)


Striving to reach consensus about the use of resources is crucial in spatial planning. Civic engagement and participatory planning support activities of negotiation and consensus building. Negotiation, as considered in this work, is a process of communication in which parties exchange their messages, opinions, or statements in order to influence the other party (Fisher 1991). In simple terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem. Many situations in urban and regional planning require negotiations and consensus building. Some examples may include questions like where to locate a new road; how to design the newly created park; and what is the best location for a new shopping mall. A negotiation can be interpersonal where several individuals negotiate, or inter-group in which groups negotiate among themselves. It can include different stakeholders: the residents of the planned area, various government departments, real-estate developers, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s). Reaching a consensus among different stakeholders is a challenging task which often needed to involve compromises among all involved parties. These negotiations take place because the stakeholders and individuals wish to create something new or resolve a problem or dispute. The problem usually arises when there are conflicting interests involved on how to use natural resources, land, buildings and/or how to revitalize and further develop cities and landscapes. One of the big challenges faced by planners that facilitate participatory planning and civic engagement represents the process of consensus building in which the parties can present their conflicting points of view with the goal of arriving at an agreement.


Consensus Building Process Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) Dharavi Geogames Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) 
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.



The authors appreciate and acknowledge Karan Damle and Jayesh Lahori, undergraduate students at the International Institute of Information technology, Hyderabad, India who developed the complete game application. This research would have not been possible without their effort. A special thanks to the local NGO, be the locals, working in Dharavi for giving insights into locals’ perceptions or real-experiences when it comes to development and importantly for articulating the aspirations. The serious game development was partially funded by Department of Information Technology, Govt. of India under the National Program on Perception Engineering project Phase II, where the second author of this chapter is a principal investigator. Thank you to Brandon Klein, Iowa State University, for the language improvements of this text.


  1. Abt CC (1970) Serious games. University Press of America, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlqvist O (2011) Converging themes in cartography and computer games. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 38(3):278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlqvist O, Ramanathan J, Loffing T, Kocher A (2012) Geospatial human-environment simulation through integration of massive multiplayer online games and geographic information systems. Trans GIS 16(3):331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Kodmany K (2001) Online tools for public participation. Gov Inf Q 18:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arputham J, Patel S (2010) Recent developments in plans for Dharavi and for the airport slums in Mumbai. Environ Urban 22(2):501–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basedow S, Pundt H (2001) Braucht bürgerbeteiligung in der planung GIS-funktionalitäten?, CORP conference, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks MP (2002) Planning theory for practitioners. Planners Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  8. Carver S (2001) The future of participatory approaches using geographic information: developing a research agenda for the 21st century. ESF-NSF meeting on access and participatory approaches in using geographic information, Spoleto, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in Communication Excerpt: from Perspectives on Socially shared Cognition, Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) American Psychological Association, p. 127–149Google Scholar
  10. Craig WJ, Harris TM, Weiner D (2002) Community participation and geographic information systems. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Camerer CF, Ho TH, Chong JK (2004) A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Q J Econ 119(3):861–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandan V (2014) Dharavi: not a slum, but Asia’s largest small-scale industry, Web., 22 Jan 2014. Accessed 8 March 2016
  13. Costa-Gomes M, Crawford VP, Broseta B (2001) Cognition and behavior in normal-form games: an experimental study. Econometrica 69(5):1193–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devisch O (2011) Sollten Stadtplaner Computerspielespielen? In: Bauwelt 24.11, Hasselt. p 26–30Google Scholar
  15. Donohue WA, Dies ME, Hamilton M (1984) Coding naturalistic negotiation interaction, Human Communication Research 10(3):403–425Google Scholar
  16. DRA n.a. Dharavi redevelopment agency, Web. Accessed 22 Feb 2016
  17. Fant LM (1992) Analyzing negotiation talk – authentic data vs. role play in A. Grindsted A, Wagner J (eds) Communication for Specific Purposes, Tuebingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, p 164–175Google Scholar
  18. Fisher R (1991) Negotiating power: getting and using influence. In: William Breslin J, Rubin JZ (eds) Negotiation theory and practice. Program on Negotiation Books, Cambridge, pp 127–140. 128Google Scholar
  19. Fischer F (2006) Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: the cultural politics of discursive space. Am Rev Public Admin 36(1):19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gee JP (2004) Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee JP (2005) Why video games are good for your soul: pleasure and learning. Common Ground, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgiadou Y, Stoter J (2010) Studying the use of geoinformation in government—a conceptual framework. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34(1):70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. E, Manosevitch E (2010) Augmented deliberation: merging physical and virtual interaction to engage communities in urban planning. New Media Soc 13(1):75–95Google Scholar
  24. Innes J (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and practice. J Plann Educ Res 14(3):183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Innes J (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J Am Plann Assoc 62(4):460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Innes JE, Booher DE (2002) Collaborative planning as capacity building: changing the paradigm of governance. Paper prepared for the Association of European Schools of Planning ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  27. Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) Geographic information systems for group decision making. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kardan K (2006) Computer role-playing games as a vehicle for teaching history, culture and language. Sandbox Symposium Proceedings, July. Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Kingston R, Carver S, Evans A, Turton I (2000) Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making. Comput Environ Urban Syst 24:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemke JL (1998) Metamedia literacy: transforming meanings and media. In: Reinking D, Labbo L, McKenna M, Kiefer R (eds) Handbook of literacy and technology: transformations in a post-typographic world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 283–301Google Scholar
  31. Mehta M (2010) Dharavi redevelopment project. World conference—India, remaking sustainable cities in the vertical age, CTBUH 2010 conference, Mumbai, India, February 2010, presentation slidesGoogle Scholar
  32. McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR (1995) Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games Econ Behav 10(1):6–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagel R (1995) Unraveling in guessing games: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 85(5):1313–1326Google Scholar
  34. Naquin CE, Kurtzberg TR, Belkin LY (2010) The finer points of lying online: E-mail versus pen and paper. Journal of Applied Psychology 95:387–394Google Scholar
  35. NSDO n.a. National slum dwellers organization, Web. Accessed 13 Jan 2016
  36. Pickles J (1995) Representations in an electronic age: geography, GIS, and democracy. In: Pickles J (ed) Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems. Guilford Press, New York, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  37. Poplin A (2015) How user-friendly are online interactive maps? Survey based on experiments with heterogeneous users. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 42(4):358–376. Taylor & Francis, ISSN: 1545-0465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poplin A (2014) Digital serious game for urban planning: B3—design your marketplace! Environ Plann B Plann Des 41(3):493–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poplin A (2012a) Web-based PPGIS for Wilhelmsburg, Germany: an integration of interactive GIS-based maps with an online questionnaire. Special Issue J Urban Regional Inf Syst Assoc (URISA) 25(2):71–84Google Scholar
  40. Poplin A (2012b) Playful public participation in urban planning: a case study for online serious games. Comput Environ Urban Syst (CEUS) 36(3):195–206. Elsevier, Web. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Putnam LL, Jones TS (1982) The Role of Communication in Bargaining, Human Communication Research 8(3):262–280Google Scholar
  42. Rinner C (1999) Argumentation maps—GIS-based discussion support for online planning. GMD research series No. 22. GMD German National Research Center for Information Technology, Sankt Augustin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  43. Rinner C (2001) Argumentation maps—GIS-based discussion support for online planning. Environ Plann B Plann Des 28(6):847–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rinner C (2005) Computer support for discussions in spatial planning. In: Campagna M (ed) GIS for sustainable development. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 16–80Google Scholar
  45. Rinner C (2006) Argumentation mapping in collaborative spatial decision making. In: Balram S, Dragicevic S (eds) Collaborative geographic information systems. Idea Group, Hershey, PA, pp 85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ritterfeld U, Cody M, Vorderer P (eds) (2009) Serious games: mechanisms and effects. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Roseland M (2005) Toward sustainable communities: resources for citizens and their governments. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlossberg M, Shuford E (2005) Delineating “Public” and “Participation” in PP GIS. URISA Journal 16(2):16–26Google Scholar
  49. Schlieder C, Kiefer P, Matyas S (2006) Geogames—designing location-based games from classic board games. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schroeder P (1996) Report on Public Participation GIS Workshop, NCGIA Technical Report 96–97, Scientific Report for Initiative 19 Specialist MeetingGoogle Scholar
  51. Sieber R (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96(3):491–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sokolova M, Lapalme G (2012) How much do we say? Using informativeness of negotiation text records for early prediction of negotiation outcomes, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer Netherlands, p. 363–379Google Scholar
  53. Steinmann R, Krek A, Blaschke T (2004) Can online map-based applications improve citizen participation? Lecture notes in computer science, TED on e-government 2004. Springer Verlag, Bozen, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson MM (2000) GIS technology and data sharing, planning into the next millennium. Cornell J Plann Urban Issues 15:20–33Google Scholar
  55. Zeng G, Takatsuka S (2009) Text-based peer–peer collaborative dialogue in acomputer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context, System 37, p. 434–446, Elsevier, Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.International Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations