Next Article in Journal
Perceived ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and Consumers’ Responses: The Mediating Role of Brand Credibility, Brand Image, and Perceived Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Identifying Critical Risk Factors in Green Product Certification Using Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/su14084514
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Digitalization, Participation and Interaction: Towards More Inclusive Tools in Urban Design—A Literature Review

by
Gustavo De Siqueira
1,*,
Sadmira Malaj
1 and
Mayssa Hamdani
2
1
Urban Planning and Architectural Design Department, German University of Technology in Oman, Muscat 130, Oman
2
Computer Sciences Department, German University of Technology in Oman, Muscat 130, Oman
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4514; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084514
Submission received: 17 February 2022 / Revised: 31 March 2022 / Accepted: 5 April 2022 / Published: 11 April 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The 11th sustainable development goal highlights the importance of making our cities more inclusive. For that, planning processes should become more engaging and empower citizens to actively participate in designing their environments. However, the COVID-19 crisis exposed inequalities and posed challenges to communal activities due to restrictions on face-to-face activities. These constraints brought many researchers and practitioners to rethink the process of co-designing workshops, putting digitalization in the spotlight. The present study consists of a systematic literature review focusing on understanding how digital technologies affect participatory approaches in urban design and how they have evolved since the 1990s. Also, it investigates the correlation between levels of participation and interaction in different types of collaborative design workshops held in communities. We found that many authors have been developing new methodologies and digital tools aiming to digitalize the co-designing experience through mediation. However, there is no evolutionary evidence of tools in the field creating bridges between digitalization, participation, and interaction. We argue that a research agenda is required to produce more sophisticated tools to tackle social barriers and support inclusive design towards sustainable urban development patterns.

1. Introduction

The recent global experience of COVID-19 has imposed limitations on face-to-face events, forcing co-design researchers and practitioners to rethink the process of collaboration [1]. Therefore, significant attention has been paid to developing alternative methodologies with different degrees of digitalization, to overcome the lack of citizen participation in the process of designing collective spaces [2,3].
This study is inspired by the seminal work of Arnstein [4] which explored categorization of participation levels in the governance of neighborhoods according to the empowerment of citizens. This consists of three basic levels, with only the highest representing a genuine participation process: non-participation (manipulation and therapy), tokenism (informing, consultation, placation), and citizen control (partnership, delegation, citizen control). The current study focuses on the process of designing urban environments. We are especially interested in understanding to what extent digital tools foster the interaction of citizens in collaborative design workshops in the field of urban design. Thus, we extracted from the literature a classification of different levels of planning process digitalization described in the studies. We then used this classification to structure the analysis of the studies and combined it with other variables that emerged from the analysis. Table 1 displays a matrix of the variables and the identified broader levels of these variables.

1.1. Defining Types of Workshops

1.1.1. Traditional Workshops

Traditional collaboration design workshops in the field of urban design consist of face-to-face discussions/interactions in a physical environment [5]. Their main aim is to promote the direct interaction of participants within the design process by utilizing tools such as physical models and other complementary objects [6]. Despite the advantages that traditional workshops offer, digital tools are popular. They help to expand the experience during events and enable a large number of participants to be involved [5,7].

Level of Participation

When discussing the community’s participation in the designing process, it is crucial to highlight the role of direct interaction, and traditional workshops are the most natural way to convene. On the one hand, this approach creates opportunities to establish a dialogue between multiple stakeholders to determine the challenges faced by communities. Furthermore, it also provides simple tools to allow these discussions to take place within a collaborative environment to develop plans to overcome the problems identified [6]. On the other hand, traditional workshops depend on a laborious process to fully engage the community and secure their attendance [5]. The recruitment process is time-consuming, and since their presence is required, many community members are reluctant to dedicate time and efforts to contribute to events whose benefits they are not aware of in advance [6].

Level of Digitalization

Traditional workshops are built upon manual tools and therefore have a low level of digitalization. If any digital tools are involved, they are restricted to computer graphics and the screen-sharing of proposed design alternatives, where the participants have the opportunity to discuss and evaluate the material presented [8].

Level of Interaction

Despite the influence of digital technologies, some authors still focus their studies on workshops that use traditional tools [9]. They suggest that traditional non-digitally based workshops trigger a higher level of interaction between participants and produce the most valuable insights for the designing process [2,10,11].

1.1.2. Digital Workshops

In contrast with traditional workshops, digital workshops may be defined as events or gatherings based on virtual perception deploying interactive 3D visualization to support the perception of the design process and increase the level of engagement among different stakeholders [12,13]. Conversely, this process brings a critical concern which is the interaction level with the design object [14].

Level of Participation

Public participation plays an essential role in urban design regarding decision-making and community acceptance of a proposed intervention in the urban environment [15]. In the past five years, many authors have focused on building a bridge between the participatory and design processes through virtual visualization [10,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. In response to this demand for digital participation in the making of cities, the use of digital tools and online platforms have become popular [24,25]. Therefore, many tools and methods have been proposed and designed to create an interactive virtual workshop to support citizen participation in the urban design process [2,10,11,12,15,16,17,22]. The advantage of digital workshops is the high participation level reached through online platforms [15,26,27,28,29]. Those platforms are primarily designed to stimulate a larger number of players to participate in the process [16,29,30] and to engage communities in discussion forums guided by expert knowledge while the decision-making process unfolds [31,32]. Workshops based on this methodology consist mainly of discussion and feedback collection [21]. This approach plays an essential role in the design process because it can be scaled up [18]. Some authors consider the digitalization of community workshops to be an innovative approach that offers opportunities to foster the potential for inclusive design processes and consequently to increase the quality of life in the urban environment [10,33,34,35]. However, collaboration across disciplines and different areas of expertise presents major challenges [34].

Level of Digitalization

As mentioned in the previous section, the technological development of mediating tools has drawn significant attention across many different design-related disciplines relating to the urban environment. During the pandemic, authors developed many proposals and suggestions for how to digitalize the process of collaborative workshops. Many digital tools, methodologies, and apps have been proposed to allow citizens more access to the design process through discussion/feedback forums. For example, Community Crit is a mobile online tool developed for the community to give their feedback about ongoing projects taking place in their neighborhoods [20]. This kind of tool involves digital design technologies aiming to facilitate the collaboration between participants in different workshops via online platforms and social networks [36,37,38].
However, many challenges are faced when developing this level of digitalization. One of the main challenges is to provide digital tools with the capacity to generate interactive 3D visualization allowing for realistic perception of the design process and empowering stakeholders with different skills to make informed arguments and decisions [12]. These tools aim to stimulate collective curator practices to democratize the decision-making process in contemporary urban planning at a neighborhood scale [35,39].
Additionally, digital participation technologies have the potential to reshape professional practice in the co-designing process [12,40]. Also, digital design files can be easily processed and shared with digital fabrication hubs, enhancing the communication of ideas to the clients [20] as a crucial activity to secure the success of the design process [16]. According to Batty [16], visualization is the most significant of all activities in the co-designing process; it is also the most affected by the development of digital technologies.
Ultimately, emerging technologies based on digitalization may support the achievement of sustainable and inclusive goals. Therefore, we need to develop solutions that meet the needs of diverse age groups of the population, which is only possible to achieve using an interdisciplinary approach [10]. Digital workshops tend to be well accepted by younger demographics but the process still has to be developed to include the elderly [21].

Level of Interaction

Technological development has demonstrated many benefits regarding inclusiveness in the co-design process. Nevertheless, the main concern lies in how technology affects the interaction between citizens and the design process. As explained above, digital tools can facilitate social connection among participants by significantly affecting their numbers. Furthermore, they can also foster citizens’ empowerment and promote community building during collective discussions as part of the urban design processes [41,42].
Mahyar [20]–citing the Community Crit app–emphasizes the importance that technology can have in engaging the community in the design process. It has been noted that most people have neither time nor expertise to participate in co-design activities [10]. Therefore, the Community Crit app should become fully based on digital tools inviting citizens to contribute to the activities in question with meaningful input [20]. Community Crit played an essential role in encouraging people to participate in complex urban design tasks, yet there were many challenges affecting the interaction between participants in the design process [20].
It is notable that many published studies focus on the effect of technology on the co-design process, and how to involve different stakeholders through digitalization [16,20,21,35,40]. Such approaches, however, have failed to address certain issues regarding the interactivity of stakeholders with each other and with the design object during the co-design process. As described by Gosta [43], digital workshop platforms are increasingly being used to capture real-time feedback, user experiences, and perceptions, to promote–according to the topic in question–the voices of vulnerable populations. This leads to significantly higher levels of inclusiveness and consequently increases the level of participation. Gosta’s and many other authors’ arguments are restricted to the advantages that digital workshops offer; however, their studies overlook other issues they raise, particularly the level of interaction among participants.
Another interesting point to be considered is determining how to analyze and process design outcomes over time and space, which is a relevant point for designers interested in gauging interaction outcomes [44].

1.1.3. Mixed-Methods Workshops

Mixed-methods workshops–as the name suggests–consist mainly of events where mixed methodologies are applied, and their design combines technology and the physical environment. The favored technology used in this type of workshop is AR (augmented reality). It is used to create a 3D model for urban design, blending real and virtual spaces. AR-based workshops allow users to interact with the proposed environment by moving items on a table surface [45]. Ultimately, mixed methodology workshops aim to enhance the experience of users over existing physical environments mediated by digital tools that allow them to directly interact with it and to have direct impacts on the designing process and decision-making [46].

Level of Participation

Mixed-methods workshops are designed to help participants become involved in exploration of and discussions about the topic in question, resulting in some kind of decision-making or recommendations [47].
According to Beattie et al. [25], a face-to-face workshop employing a mixed-methods approach can have a significant impact on the results of the final design. His research consists of a co-design workshop with a mixed-modes methodology aimed at involving the participants in the process of rethinking city design. Workshop participants were able to interact with urban elements, made available as tools in the software, with which participants were “playing” while discussions evolved. Based on the analysis of the collected data, the study concluded that high interaction of participants is the primary indicator of a successful co-design process [25]. This approach consists predominantly in involving the community in decision-making. Therefore, the groups consisted of a small number of participants, with a high level of interaction with the software and tools given [25].
On the other hand, mixed methodologies workshops blending physical and virtual environments have some constraints. Most notable is that their delivery must be restricted to a small number of participants. This conclusion derives from the limitations imposed by the digital tools used during the workshops [22,23,26,47]. Additionally, before the workshop starts, the participants must be trained to become familiar with the media employed [40].
Regardless, in addition to restrictions in size, it has also become evident that such an approach could face challenges in delivering solutions that efficiently address citizens’ concerns [48]. Studies have suggested that this problem that could in some cases be solved using storytelling as an additional component [40].

Level of Digitalization

Workshops based on mixed-methods approaches provide the ability to explore dynamically visual representations of the design–i.e., users can see targeted real-time changes where these are considered particularly informative [47,49,50].
Some authors have stated that the advantage of using a mixed-methodologies approach is that digital technology can be used to expand the reach of the workshop ‘beyond engagement’ [8,17,47].
Salter [47] showed that mixed-methods workshops can deliver strong interaction among participants, especially when dealing with a complex environment. This study provides an interactive tool between landscape visualization and the workshop process [47].
Seichter [45] proposes a prototypical system based on AR technology to create a 3D model for urban design, where the primary interaction modus is dragging. This type of interaction offers full transparency around the likely changes. All instances (remote or local) can be dragged to the same position in the model space. Another similar application is proposed by Terracciano [18], based on AR technology that allows the user to experience a street in seven minutes. This application could reproduce the actual context of the area by reading the map, certain symbols, and other detailed information from the site such as images and videos containing storytelling features [19,23].

Level of Interaction

Mixed-methods workshops are designed for a specific purpose beyond entertainment. These workshops increase cooperation between participants, improve engagement with the design processes, facilitate perception, and provoke discussion about relevant issues. They can directly impact decision-making, foster interaction between stakeholders, designers, and planners, and help shape opinions to become more informed and collective-driven [25,46].
In these mixed-methods workshops, digital storytelling is considered an interactive tool that can facilitate social connections among participants [23,41,51].
Piga and Morello [44] presented an overview of human/environment interaction in a simulation experience, where the importance of technological services was affirmed by improving the user experience and consequently improving support for the decision-making process. This is especially relevant because, with time, the necessary technological tools will become gradually more affordable and consequently more accessible for many people. On the other hand, Besserud and Hussey [52], demonstrate the need for increased scientific research into simulation to find a balance between simplicity of use and technological sophistication [52].
“City Science Group” has already conceptualized and developed a data-driven platform to increase the level of user interaction, offering additional advantages compared to traditional methods, especially regarding urban interventions. This platform helps enormously to foster collaboration across groups of participants. Another similar project improves decision-making through the simultaneous combination of an interactive interface and a real-time feedback system [53].
Similarly, Ishii [14] proposed an augmented reality workbench to facilitate communication around concepts and ideas. This workbench combines and integrates multiple physical and digital design representations (2D drawings, 3D physical models, and real-time simulations), providing a hybrid and compound experience that is highly beneficial to the design process. In that proposal, a 3D GIS simulation tool (equipped with a 3D database) visualizes a 3D model in a real-time interactive environment so that the entire design team have access to more advanced levels of communication, intervention, and interaction than were possible with previous alternatives [54]. The major concern with this real-time simulator is the demand for high-performance hardware; the entire system can lose performance and operationality when using common graphics cards.

1.2. Research Gap

In summary, many studies have focused on developing different digital tools, aiming to increase the level of participation in the urban design process. Some of these studies explore certain aspects of the development of the identified tool. However, there remains a lack of a comprehensive research into digital collaborative design tools to explore the impact of those tools on different relevant aspects of co-design processes.

2. Materials and Methods

To address this problem, we pursued a systematic review of digital tools used in collaborative workshops within the field of urban design. Our study was conducted in June 2021 to address the research question: Do digital tools facilitate the interaction of citizens in collaborative design workshops for urban design? We employed Semantic Scholar [55] as the main search tool, as it offers specific filtering functions and its search engine is powered with artificial intelligence delivering accurate results.

2.1. Search Criteria

The syntax of the initial search consisted of a combination of the terms “urban design”, “community workshops”, and “digital tools”.
The first result–without any restrictions–retrieved 722 papers in total, published from 1990 onwards. The highest number of published papers was from 2017, with 72 papers. After this peak, a slight decrease was observed, bringing the approximate average to 50 papers published annually.
We sorted the papers by citations and selected all papers with twenty citations or more. This was essential to save highly influential papers from being filtered out during the refinement process where chronological restrictions were imposed. We found five papers in this category—three papers older than five years accounting for 35 to 178 citations (Table 2).
Subsequently, we restricted the search to the past five years, resulting in 298 papers, taking into consideration the COVID-19 pandemic period and its impact on the topic.

2.2. Gathering and Filtering Data

In the next refinement step, the content of papers was scrutinized. A total of 236 papers were excluded, which focused on digital tools but in other fields or sectors such as medical/mental health, teaching methods, agriculture, building construction materials, economy, art, etc. This reduced the total number of papers published during the five years to 62. Another selection of papers was made according to their relevance to our research question, which concluded in 20 papers.

2.3. Categorization

We started working with the three typologies of workshops (i.e., traditional workshops, digital workshops, and mixed-methods workshops) to classify the ability of the different methods to involve participants in the participatory process. Subsequently, we broke down these categories into four variables to operationalize the assessment of potential patterns and validate the assumption that the level of digitalization is increasing and is associated with improvements in other qualities inherent in collaborative methods (Table 3). The variables that we could identify as present across our selection of studies were:
The year of publication—this is helpful to provide insights into whether any evolutionary patterns could be observed within the time range investigated. It is numeric and the only continuous variable.
The level of digitalization—this aims to identify the predominance of digital tools in the deployed method. In level 1 are categorized the studies that represent low digitality i.e., those based on analogical tools to mediate the process. Level 2 collects studies based on medium digitality. Level 3 includes all studies which represent the highest level of digitality, employing sophisticated tools such as mixed realities and digital platforms.
The level of participation—influenced by Arnstein’s ladder of citizens’ participation [4], we assigned three levels of citizens’ participation across the studies. Level 1 typically describes a study where participants were informed about the design. Level 2 includes studies where participants were involved in the design process. In level 3 are categorized the studies which aimed at collaboration with or among participants.
The level of interaction—this aims to identify how the tool enables participants to influence and change the design. In a level 1 study, participants were unable directly to manipulate the design, but they could give feedback. In level 2, the studies are based on mediated interaction, where a professional team supported the digital workshop tools according to the participants’ discussion. In level 3, the collected studies are based on indirect interaction, where the participants interacted with the digital workshop tools in a physical or virtual environment.

2.4. Analysis

The association between categories was tested using Spearman’s nonparametric correlation. The Spearman correlation allows for tests between categorical variables and–as in our case–a mixed sample of continuous and categorical variables [56]. The statistical significance was tested at 0.005 Alpha.

3. Results

Ideally, progress in participatory design should be observed as digitalization becomes more intensively employed. Consequently, digital tools would increase their capacity to support non-specialists to directly impact design outcomes. Figure 1 displays the studies we investigated, ordered chronologically with inputs colored from light to dark according to their rank. In this visualization, only the level of interaction variable seems to display any degree of evolution, while the other variables do not follow any evident patterns.
To gain further insight into possible correlations between variables not revealed through the visualization in Figure 1, we plotted the dataset with different combinations using a matrix of correlations (Figure 2). In this context, the chronological time variable was disregarded. We expected to be able to recognize patterns that suggest some degree of correlation between the variables; such patterns are usually described as linear or curved forms. Once more, no evident correlations could be observed.
Finally, we tested the correlations statistically using SPSS. The Spearman correlation was chosen since it can test correlations between continuous and categorical variables. In our case–although numeric–all variables were categorical except for the year of publication. Once again, none of the correlations between the tested variables succeeded in refuting the null hypothesis and they do not demonstrate statistical significance (Table 4).

4. Discussion

While collecting the sample for this project, we assessed several studies dedicated to exploring the digitalization of community workshops. This suggests that massive efforts have been made to develop and test new tools to empower workshop participants, with different degrees of success. Indeed, there is a strong consensus in the field on the potential of new technologies to overcome the challenges posed by collaborative design workshops in the complex context where urban design operates. However, when reflecting on the latent development potential of the so-called digital workshops, one might reach a set of assumptions.
(1) Digitalization. The most fundamental assumption would be that the tools employed in this field should become more sophisticated, because they built upon past experiences. Increments in digitalization would be a natural consequence of this process, since this is a ubiquitous phenomenon observed in other societal fields. Nevertheless, our results showed that this is not necessarily the case. Digital workshops–or in other words workshops deploying more sophisticated digital tools [16,47]–are underrepresented and some date from more than ten years ago. Contrary to the demand for digitalization in the field, manually deployed workshops e.g., [34], Guzman [8], etc., are still favored.
(2) Participation. That leads us to the second assumption, that digital tools will lead to higher levels of participation since they ease the engagement of participants. Once more, our results refute this assumption. There is no evident correlation indicating that digital tools consistently increase participation levels. For example, one study [16] used some of the most sophisticated digital tools, but the level of participation was restricted to involvement in the design process.
(3) Interaction. Finally, digitalization is expected to empower citizens, giving them a stronger voice in the design process through community workshops. That requires tools that allow more direct actions by all actors, reducing mediators’ impact. Our study shows that this pattern of development is not consistently recognizable. All studies based on non-mediated interaction of participants [10,11,35] were designed as traditional workshops operating by analogic means.
The digitalization of society has had tremendous impact on the behavior of citizens, as studies from different fields have shown [57]. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how important it is to follow this trend [58]. However, contrary to expectations, patterns of development in the field do not point in the expected direction. Perhaps that indicates the need to create a digital community workshop agenda defining strategies to trigger more effective progress in the field, steering the research towards areas of impact. It could also indicate the need for multidisciplinary approaches enabling technological advancements to yield more socially oriented results and ultimately make planning processes more inclusive.

5. Conclusions

The technological advancements behind digital tools have had a great impact on people’s interactions in several sectors, with evolving efficacy in recent years. It may be stated that the primary purpose of any technology is to facilitate the execution of intended tasks, but that the implementation of technology ends up transforming the field in which it was deployed. This is applicable in the field of urban design, where simulation tools have recently gained importance. One of the main goals of sustainable urban development is to make cities more inclusive, so planning processes should consequently become more democratic. Thus, there is high demand for tools that allow a higher level of participation with more direct interaction between multiple stakeholders.
Despite growing awareness in the field of urban design about the role of participatory approaches, our findings reveal that coordinated actions between interdisciplinary teams to steer progress in the intended direction are still lacking. Many studies exploring the digitalization of the design process have failed to provide a more sophisticated level of user interaction. Conversely, other studies have explored more interactive experiences but have failed to offer more advanced levels of digitalization.
Furthermore, we were very surprised to note the scarcity of studies dedicated to exploring the associations between digitalization and urban design. Although the available number of studies is sufficient to give insights into the questions raised by this study, a larger body of research would help to solidify our conclusions and would contribute to the exploration of unexpected patterns. We consider this the major limitation of this study.
There are many ways to extend the scope of the present study. The use of blockchain technology, for example, could increase the capacity of digital workshops to turn them into more accessible platforms for direct exchanges among peers increasing both the reach of the tool (trust), the reliability of the feedback generated (traceability) and users’ safety (transparency) [59,60]. However, as mentioned previously, what we consider most urgent is the constitution of a comprehensive research agenda on digital collaborative design tools. Steering mechanisms–both practical and theoretical–are required to ensure that digital co-design overcomes the imminent trap of the digital divide.

Author Contributions

G.D.S.—data analysis, concept, writing draft and final manuscript; S.M.—data collection, concept, writing draft and final manuscript; M.H.—concept, writing draft and final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was founded by the German University of Technology, Oman.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The coding of individual studies and the references to the studies are available in text (Figure 1), and upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Golden, E.A.; Zweig, M.; Danieletto, M.; Landell, K.; Nadkarni, G.; Bottinger, E.; Katz, L.; Somarriba, R.; Sharma, V.; Katz, C.L.; et al. A Resilience-Building App to Support the Mental Health of Health Care Workers in the COVID-19 Era: Design Process, Distribution, and Evaluation (Preprint). JMIR Form. Res. 2021, 5, e26590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. FAB at CHI: Digital Fabrication Tools, Design, and Community. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; Volume 2013, pp. 3307–3310. [CrossRef]
  3. Zamenopoulos, T.; Lam, B.; Alexiou, K.; Kelemen, M.; De Sousa, S.; Moffat, S.; Phillips, M. Types, obstacles and sources of empowerment in co-design: The role of shared material objects and processes. CoDesign 2019, 17, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Davis, A.; Wallace, N.; Langley, J.; Gwilt, I. Low-contact co-design: Considering more flexible spatiotemporal models for the co-design workshop. Strateg. Des. Res. J. 2021, 14, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. De Siqueira, G.; Al Balushi, A. Co-designing the pedestrian revolution in Muscat. City Territ. Arch. 2020, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jacobs, J.; Brandt, J.; Mellis, D.; Tanenbaum, J.; Zoran, A.; Torres, C. Digital Craftsmanship: HCI Takes on Technology as an Expressive Medium. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Fuse, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 4–8 June 2016; pp. 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Larkey, L.; Del Toro-Mejías, L.; DiFulvio, G.; Gubrium, A. Narrative Influences on ‘Desire to Act in My Community’ in Digital Storytelling Workshops for Latina Teens. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 2018, 38, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gray, J.; Rumpe, B. Models as the subject of research. Softw. Syst. Model. 2019, 18, 3189–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hatton, A.L.; Haslam, C.; Bell, S.; Langley, J.; Woolrych, R.; Cory, C.; Brownjohn, J.M.W.; Goodwin, V.A. Innovative solutions to enhance safe and green environments for ageing well using co-design through patient and public involvement. Res. Involv. Engagem. 2020, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Widzisz-pronobis, S. Involving Public Space Users to Design Changes Based on the Redevelopment of the Square in Gorzów Wielkopolski (Poland). Case Study. Archit. Civ. Eng. Environ. 2019, 12, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Münster, S.; Georgi, C.; Heijne, K.; Klamert, K.; Noennig, J.R.; Pump, M.; Stelzle, B.; der Meer, H. How to involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges and promising approaches. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 112, 2391–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eric, D.; Refined, S. Organize Three International DARIAH Workshops; no. 731081; Desir: Paris, France, 2020; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ishii, H.; Underkoffler, J.; Chak, D.; Piper, B.; Ben-Joseph, E.; Yeung, L.; Kanji, Z. Augmented Urban Planning Workbench: Overlaying drawings, Physical Models and Digital Simulation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Darmstadt, Germany, 1 October 2002; pp. 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Andersson, B.; Johansson, B.; Barry, C.; Lang, M.; Linger, H.; Schneider, C. Advances in Information Systems Development: Designing Digitalization; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  16. Batty, M.; Chapman, D.; Evans, S.; Haklay, M.; Kueppers, S.; Shiode, N.; Smith, A.; Torrens, P.M. Visualizing the City: Communicating Urban Design to Planners and Decision-Makers; CASA: London, UK, 2000; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mitchell, C.; Chege, F.; Maina, L.; Rothman, M. Beyond engagement in working with children in eight Nairobi slums to address safety, security, and housing: Digital tools for policy and community dialogue. Glob. Public Health 2016, 11, 651–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Stelzle, B.; Jannack, A.; Noennig, J.R. Co-Design and Co-Decision: Decision Making on Collaborative Design Platforms. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 112, 2435–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Terracciano, A.; Dima, M.; Carulli, M.; Bordegoni, M. Mapping Memory Routes: A Multisensory Interface for Sensorial Urbanism and Critical Heritage Studies. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; Volume Part F1276, pp. 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mahyar, N.; James, M.R.; Ng, M.M.; Wu, R.A.; Dow, S.P. CommunityCrit: Inviting the Public to Improve and Evaluate Urban Design Ideas through Micro-Activities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Di Mascio, D.; Clarke, R.; Akama, Y.; Salim, F. Urban HCI: (Re)Adapting the City Together. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Fuse, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 4–8 June 2016; pp. 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fletcher, S.; Mullett, J. Digital stories as a tool for health promotion and youth engagement. Can. J. Public Health 2016, 107, e183–e187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Briant, K.J.; Halter, A.; Marchello, N.; Escareño, M.; Thompson, B. The Power of Digital Storytelling as a Culturally Relevant Health Promotion Tool. Health Promot. Pract. 2016, 17, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Smolinski, M.S.; Crawley, A.W.; Olsen, J.M.; Jayaraman, T.; Libel, M. Participatory disease surveillance: Engaging communities directly in reporting, monitoring, and responding to health threats. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017, 3, e7540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Beattie, H.; Brown, D.; Kindon, S. Solidarity through difference: Speculative participatory serious urban gaming (SPS-UG). Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2020, 18, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Michie, L.; Balaam, M.; McCarthy, J.; Osadchiy, T.; Morrissey, K. From Her Story, to Our Story. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Avram, G.; Choi, J.H.J.; De Paoli, S.; Light, A.; Lyle, P.; Teli, M. Collaborative economies: From sharing to caring. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Troyes, France, 26–30 June 2017; Volume Part F1285, pp. 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Dantas, C.; Van Staalduinen, W.; Jegundo, A.; Ganzarain, J. Smart Healthy Age-Friendly Environments-funding models and best practices. Int. J. Integr. Care 2019, 19, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tennyson, R. Building for Health. Facilities 2016, 9, 18–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fleming, T.; Merry, S.; Stasiak, K.; Hopkins, S.; Patolo, T.; Ruru, S.; Latu, M.; Shepherd, M.; Christie, G.; Goodyear-Smith, F. The Importance of User Segmentation for Designing Digital Therapy for Adolescent Mental Health: Findings from Scoping Processes. JMIR Ment. Health 2019, 6, e12656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Izmailova, E.S.; Wagner, J.A.; Ammour, N.; Amondikar, N.; Bell-Vlasov, A.; Berman, S.; Bloomfield, D.; Brady, L.S.; Cai, X.; Calle, R.A.; et al. Remote Digital Monitoring for Medical Product Development. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2021, 14, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Budney, A.J.; Marsch, L.A.; Aklin, W.M.; Borodovsky, J.T.; Brunette, M.F.; Campbell, A.T.; Dallery, J.; Kotz, D.; Knapp, A.A.; Lord, S.E.; et al. Workshop on the Development and Evaluation of Digital Therapeutics for Health Behavior Change: Science, Methods, and Projects. JMIR Ment. Health 2020, 7, e1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kwon, S.; Sylte, S.; Awadhiya, A.; Lindquist, M.; Gell, G.; Admassu, K.A. Land.info: Interactive 3D Visualization for Public Space Design Ideation in Neighborhood Planning. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McCay-Peet, L.; Toms, E.G.; Quan-Haase, A. SEADE Workshop Proposal the Serendipity Factor: Evaluating the Affordances of Digital Environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’16), Carrboro, NC, USA, 13–17 March 2016; pp. 341–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sanchez Guzman, S.; Giffinger, R.; Parra-Agudelo, L.; Bogadi, A. Open Participatory Design and Digital Tools for Inclusive & Resilient Development: Full-Day Workshop. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference, Manizales, Colombia, 15–20 June 2020; Volume 2, pp. 185–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Koch, J.; Pearson, J.; Lucero, A.; Sturdee, M.; Mackay, W.E.; Lewis, M.; Robinson, S. Where Art Meets Technology: Integrating Tangible and Intelligent Tools in Creative Processes. In Proceedings of the CHI EA ’20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Greenhalgh, T.; Maylor, H.; Shaw, S.; Wherton, J.; Papoutsi, C.; Betton, V.; Nelissen, N.; Gremyr, A.; Rushforth, A.; Koshkouei, M.; et al. The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology implementation projects in health and social care: Protocol for an evaluation study in real-world settings. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2020, 9, e16861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Smith, A. Social Innovation, Democracy and Makerspaces. SSRN Electron. J. 2018, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Benito-Santos, A.; Sanchez, R.T. A Data-Driven Introduction to Authors, Readings, and Techniques in Visualization for the Digital Humanities. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2020, 40, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Manohar, A.K. Story Culture Framework: A cross Cultural Study. In Proceedings of the 9th Indian Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Bangalore, India, 16–18 December 2018; pp. 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Budak, V. Creative Freedom in the Digital Age. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, November 2015. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/2134/19354 (accessed on 28 March 2022).
  42. Raciti, M.; Chambers, S.; Raciti, M.; Chambers, S.; Organise, D.; Dariah, R. D2. 4 Organise DESIR Final Event; HAL Id: Hal-02449211; Desir: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gösta, A.; Agi, A.; Flårback, J.; Karlsson, J.; Simonsson, E. Data-Informed Urban Design: An Overview of the Use of Data and Digital Tools in Urban Planning and Design. Built Environ. 2020, 46, 620–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Piga, B.; Morello, E. Environmental design studies on perception and simulation: An urban design approach. Ambiances 2015, 1, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Seichter, H. Augmented Reality Urban Design. Benchworks. no. April 2004. pp. 1–10. Available online: http://www.technotecture.com/system/files/publication/Benchworks-2004.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2022).
  46. Bogucka, E.P.; Constantinides, M.; Aiello, L.M.; Quercia, D.; So, W.; Bancilhon, M.; Potel, M. Cartographic Design of Cultural Maps. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2020, 40, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Salter, J.D.; Campbell, C.; Journeay, M.; Sheppard, S.R.J. The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2090–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Manohar, A.K. Participatory Action Research for Emotionally Meaningful Stories. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nakae, K.; Tsukada, K. Support System to Review Manufacturing Workshop through Multiple Videos. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion, Tokyo, Japan, 7–11 March 2018; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Muir, L. Learning to Share Space-Engendering Local Understanding of Placemaking Interventions; Scottish Transport Application Research: Glasgow, UK, 2018; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  51. Paterno, M.T.; Leckenby, D.; Pachucki, M.C. Challenges and Lessons Learned from Digital Storytelling with Parenting Women in Recovery. Health Promot. Pract. 2020, 21, 340–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Besserud, K.; Hussey, T. Urban design, urban simulation, and the need for computational tools. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2011, 55, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stine, Z.K.; Agarwal, N. Agent-Based Models for Assessing Social Influence Strategies; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kim, D.; Bejleri, I. Using 3D GIS Simulation for Urban Design. ESRI Users Conf. 2005, 1–14. Available online: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap1838.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2022).
  55. Fricke, S. Semantic scholar. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Frey, B.B. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Capuşneănu, S.; Mates, D.; Tűrkeş, M.C.; Barbu, C.M.; Staraş, A.I.; Topor, D.I.; Stoenică, L.; Fűlöp, M.T. The Impact of Force Factors on the Benefits of Digital Transformation in Romania. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akram, U.; Fülöp, M.T.; Tiron-Tudor, A.; Topor, D.I.; Căpușneanu, S. Impact of Digitalization on Customers’ Well-Being in the Pandemic Period: Challenges and Opportunities for the Retail Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kshetri, N. Blockchain and sustainable supply chain management in developing countries. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 60, 102376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Oropallo, E.; Secundo, G.; Del Vecchio, P.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R. Blockchain technology for bridging trust, traceability and transparency in circular supply chain. Inf. Manag. 2021, 103508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 04514 g001 550
Figure 1. List of studies ranked using a three-point scale of categories according to their year of publication, levels of digitalization, participation, and interaction.
Figure 1. List of studies ranked using a three-point scale of categories according to their year of publication, levels of digitalization, participation, and interaction.
Sustainability 14 04514 g001
Sustainability 14 04514 g002 550
Figure 2. Matrix of correlations. The scattered diagrams do not reveal any clear patterns such as linear forms or curves to indicate a significant correlation between variables.
Figure 2. Matrix of correlations. The scattered diagrams do not reveal any clear patterns such as linear forms or curves to indicate a significant correlation between variables.
Sustainability 14 04514 g002
Table
Table 1. Matrix of types of workshops according to three variables and levels derived from analysis of the sample studies.
Table 1. Matrix of types of workshops according to three variables and levels derived from analysis of the sample studies.
Workshop DesignTraditional ToolsMixed ToolsDigital Tools
Level of ParticipationInformingInvolvingCollaborating
Level of DigitalizationLow digitalityMedium digitalityHigh digitality
Type of InteractionFeedbackMediated interactionDirect interaction
Table
Table 2. The three most influential papers in the field with twenty citations or more were detected and secured. They were added to the remaining studies filtered by chronological constraints.
Table 2. The three most influential papers in the field with twenty citations or more were detected and secured. They were added to the remaining studies filtered by chronological constraints.
Salter, J., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. (2009). The digital workshop: exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of environmental management, 90 6, 2090-101.178
Batty, M., Chapman, D., Evans, S., Haklay, M., Kueppers, S., Shiode, N., Hudson-Smith, A., & Torrens, P. (2001). Visualizing the City: Communicating urban design to planners and decision-makers.152
Mellis, D., Follmer, S., Hartmann, B., Buechley, L., & Gross, M. (2013). FAB at CHI: digital fabrication tools, design, and community. CHI ‘13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.35
Table
Table 3. Assigning a numerical code to variables representing the categories derived by analysis of the sample of studies.
Table 3. Assigning a numerical code to variables representing the categories derived by analysis of the sample of studies.
Workshop Design1
Traditional tools		2
Mixed tools		3
Digital tools
Level of Participation 1
Informing		2
Involving		3
Collaborating
Digitality1
Low digitality 		2
Medium digitality		3
High digitality
Type of Interaction 1
Feedback		2
Mediated interaction		3
Direct interaction
Table
Table 4. Spearman’s rho correlation. None of the criteria tested showed significant correlation between the categorical variables (Alpha < 0.05).
Table 4. Spearman’s rho correlation. None of the criteria tested showed significant correlation between the categorical variables (Alpha < 0.05).
YearDigitalizationParticipationInteraction
YearCorrelation Coefficient −0.1000.0440.408
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.6760.8530.074
DigitalizationCorrelation Coefficient−0.100 −0.0480.129
Sig. (2-tailed)0.676 0.8400.589
ParticipationCorrelation Coefficient0.044−0.048 0.025
Sig. (2-tailed)0.8530.840 0.917
InteractionCorrelation Coefficient0.4080.1290.025
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0740.5890.917
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

De Siqueira, G.; Malaj, S.; Hamdani, M. Digitalization, Participation and Interaction: Towards More Inclusive Tools in Urban Design—A Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084514

AMA Style

De Siqueira G, Malaj S, Hamdani M. Digitalization, Participation and Interaction: Towards More Inclusive Tools in Urban Design—A Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084514

Chicago/Turabian Style

De Siqueira, Gustavo, Sadmira Malaj, and Mayssa Hamdani. 2022. "Digitalization, Participation and Interaction: Towards More Inclusive Tools in Urban Design—A Literature Review" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084514

APA Style

De Siqueira, G., Malaj, S., & Hamdani, M. (2022). Digitalization, Participation and Interaction: Towards More Inclusive Tools in Urban Design—A Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(8), 4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084514

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop