This research combines landscape visualization and public participation, testing the
potential of mobile devices displaying a 3D visualization of future design proposals to
enhance public participation. On-site and off-site perceptions of users are compared, and
the appeal of mobile devices is demonstrated through studies undertaken at the location of
the case study area: Edward Street, Sheffield (UK).
Landscape visualizations have long been used as a tool to facilitate public participation in
forms of maps, drawing, images or physical models. Participatory planning and design
seeks the active involvement of stakeholders and focuses on users' feedback and input,
considering their needs, concerns and demands. It helps with harmonizing views and
prevents conflict by allowing stakeholders to discuss and negotiate ideas. It also provides
an opportunity for marginalized groups to take part in these processes, though it does not
always function as planned. Engaging citizens can be a substantial problem, especially
when communication between the affected parties is compromised.
Technological improvements in computer and mobile device platforms have opened new
doors for landscape visualizations and their use during participatory approaches. Mobile
technology has begun to be used for landscape visualizations thanks to its ubiquity,
portability and context-awareness. This thesis investigates the use of mobile devices as a
participatory design tool and how their on-site and off-site use affects understanding and
perception with actual users during the participatory planning and design processes.
Three research questions guide this research. The main aim is using the mobile devices as a
design tool and comparing on-site and off-site use of 3D visualizations on mobile devices.
So the first research question posed is: does the level of accuracy of 3D visualization on
mobile devices affect the understanding of participants? To answer that question, a
preparatory study has been conducted on-site with two experiments, using mobile devices
to display a walkthrough video of a 3D visualization of Edward Street Park, Sheffield, UK
with different levels of accuracy within the context of a VALUE+ Project. Actual users'
responses have been examined for understanding and perception and the effects of users' characteristics. The second research question is: can mobile devices as a design tool help in
engaging the public to identify problems and bring solutions when used in participatory
design process? Participants were asked to make sketches using an iPad as a design tool for
solution(s) to the problems they identified. The drawings have been analysed for frequency
and variety in order to identify the needs, and the to prepare 3D visualizations with design
proposals to test mobile device use on-site and off-site. Visualizations have been used
during the process of answering the final and main question: how does the on-site and offsite
use of mobile devices affect perception and understanding of participants? To answer
the research questions preparatory experiments (only on-site), one-to-one consultation
sessions and finally a questionnaire were conducted both on-site and off-site.
The results indicate that perception and understanding are affected by different levels of
accuracy on 3D visualizations. Understanding of spatial representation and perception are
enhanced by more accurate 3D mobile device visualization, even for people who are not
familiar with the site. The results have provided evidence that for on-site users, accurate
representation of 3D visualizations is essential, especially for younger generations. It
appears that using the mobile devices as a participatory design tool have a high potential to
engage people both on-site and off-site, allowing active involvement with a higher level of
participation during planning and design processes. Viewing proposed changes on a mobile
device on-site and off-site: understanding was not affected, yet there was a significant
difference in perception between the two groups. Even though both on-site and off-site use
has their own advantages and disadvantages, evidence is provided that 'on-site' and 'offsite'
users perceive the environment more accurately than 'off-site' users. |