IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v44y2017i6p1012-1035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes

Author

Listed:
  • Monica Billger
  • Liane Thuvander
  • Beata Stahre Wästberg

Abstract

Today, urban planning processes involve many stakeholders and efficient dialogue tools are needed to support communication in transdisciplinary environments. The aim of our study is to identify visualization challenges in urban planning. Based on a state of the art study and a thematic analysis of 114 articles, published in 2004–2014 and found through snowball sampling, the development and implementation of digital visualization tools for dialogue are discussed. A wide range of examples of visualization tools for dialogue has been found; either based on 2D maps, 3D environments or gaming. The initiators of the development originate from different disciplines, such as geographic information (GI) science, computer graphics, 3D modelling, Virtual Reality, interaction design and urban planning. There has been an increasing amount of usability studies during recent years. There is a tendency for the usability studies to have gone from experimental and prototype studies to more and more concern real planning processes and implementation. Studies of implemented tools in real planning processes are, however, still rare. Gaming appears more and more frequently. Challenges are related to integration of qualitative and quantitative data, representation of data as regard appropriate levels of realism and detailing, as well as the user’s experience and the appearance of the digital models. There is a need to consider how we can achieve the full potential of visualization tools, including optimal effectiveness of visualization tools and processes for dialogue as well as how they can be implemented. Organizational preparedness is necessary, including clear ownership, allocation of resources for maintenance, competence and access to tools and technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Monica Billger & Liane Thuvander & Beata Stahre Wästberg, 2017. "In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 44(6), pages 1012-1035, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:44:y:2017:i:6:p:1012-1035
    DOI: 10.1177/0265813516657341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265813516657341
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0265813516657341?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohsen Hosseinifarhangi & Margherita E. Turvani & Arnold van der Valk & Gerrit J. Carsjens, 2019. "Technology-Driven Transition in Urban Food Production Practices: A Case Study of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-31, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    2. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    3. Swaans, Kees & Broerse, Jacqueline & Meincke, Maylin & Mudhara, Maxwell & Bunders, Joske, 2009. "Promoting food security and well-being among poor and HIV/AIDS affected households: Lessons from an interactive and integrated approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 31-42, February.
    4. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    5. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    6. Thurston, Wilfreda E. & MacKean, Gail & Vollman, Ardene & Casebeer, Ann & Weber, Myron & Maloff, Bretta & Bader, Judy, 2005. "Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 237-252, September.
    7. Cox, Susan M. & Kazubowski-Houston, Magdalena & Nisker, Jeff, 2009. "Genetics on stage: Public engagement in health policy development on preimplantation genetic diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1472-1480, April.
    8. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    9. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    10. Yunita, Sekar A.W. & Soraya, Emma & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "“We are just cheerleaders”: Youth's views on their participation in international forest-related decision-making fora," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 52-58.
    11. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    12. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    13. Susumu Ohnuma & Miki Yokoyama & Shogo Mizutori, 2022. "Procedural Fairness and Expected Outcome Evaluations in the Public Acceptance of Sustainability Policymaking: A Case Study of Multiple Stepwise Participatory Programs to Develop an Environmental Maste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Torres, Miguel Matos & Clegg, L. Jeremy & Varum, Celeste Amorim, 2016. "The missing link between awareness and use in the uptake of pro-internationalization incentives," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 495-510.
    15. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    16. Martin Thomas Falk & Eva Hagsten, 2021. "When international academic conferences go virtual," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 707-724, January.
    17. Rojatz, Daniela & Forster, Rudolf, 2017. "Self-help organisations as patient representatives in health care and policy decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1047-1052.
    18. Robinson, Suzanne & Williams, Iestyn & Dickinson, Helen & Freeman, Tim & Rumbold, Benedict, 2012. "Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2386-2393.
    19. Fontana, Lorenza B. & Grugel, Jean, 2016. "The Politics of Indigenous Participation Through “Free Prior Informed Consent”: Reflections from the Bolivian Case," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 249-261.
    20. Malcolm Anderson & Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Munir Khan, 2011. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Health Care Rationing: What the Australian Public Thinks and Why," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 131-151, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:44:y:2017:i:6:p:1012-1035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.