a generative framework for participatory designing of

A GENERATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PARTICIPATORY DESIGNING OF BUILT ENVIRONMENTS Dr. Igor Bizjak, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Trnovski pristan 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Dr. Robert Klinc, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Chair of Construction Informatics, Jamova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Dr. Žiga Turk, Professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Chair of Construction Informatics, Jamova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

KEYWORDS: social media, creativity, creative construction, urban planning, wisdom of the crowd, internet, open systems. ABSTRACT: The Internet has dramatically changed everyone’s access to information, knowledge and other people. In many fields, this has resulted in an opening up of business models, products, services and organizations. Examples include open academic publishing, open software and open innovation. Experts are increasingly aware that a significant amount of knowledge and experience exists outside of their companies and institutions, which used to be the exclusive creator, aggregator and curator of knowledge and the sole places of innovation. Institutions are responding by reducing their boundaries and are opening up to the outside. A particularly potent technology for engaging people and capturing their knowledge has been social media. However, theories of participation and participatory approaches to shaping the built environment greatly predate even the Internet. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework for open and creative designing. A proven three-tier architecture, various theoretical levels of participation and an abstract view on social media tools have been used to develop an original, flexible, generative, “one size does not fit all” platform that can be used for the optimal collection of external information and knowledge. The platform allows for simple enhancement of in-house information systems (IS) with socially rich components. We are finding such a modular approach as very flexible for organizations that host the planning processes and that the application of social media technology creates very low barriers for the public to contribute. 1. Introduction Creativity is an increasingly important economic resource. Its role has been gaining prominence throughout the 20th century. Schumpeter (1934) claimed that innovation and creativity are the strategic stimulus to economic development. He advocated motivating creativity and innovation through protection of intellectual property and rewarding innovators. Hayek (1945) complemented these ideas by focusing on expanding capacity for creativity and innovation. He claimed that knowledge in a society is dispersed, that innovation and problem solving is a trial-and-error process, and that as many individuals as possible should be in a position to be creative. Together with Karl Popper (2012), he advocated an open approach to creativity and innovation in an open society. Greenspan claimed (2004) that, over the past century, economic growth has reflected “the embodiment of ideas in products and services that consumers value. This shift of emphasis from physical materials to ideas as the core of value creation appears to have accelerated in recent decades.”

1

With the popularization of the Internet, several scientists and thinkers have studied its impact on the phenomenon of creativity. Pink (2006) sees creativity as a step toward the society of meaning (rather than knowledge). For Florida (2005), creative human talent is, in addition to tolerance and technology, one of the three Ts that contributes to creativity. Because of communication technology, the sources of knowledge have changed. In the traditional world, the vast majority of the relevant knowledge and ideas are inside organizations. Today as a result of a well-educated population empowered by access to information on the Internet and the ability to contact other smart people via the Internet, the tables have shifted. A significant portion of knowledge may be on the outside of organizations. Their challenge is how to make use of that knowledge. These theoretical works on the one hand and Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) technologies on the other hand set the stage for new paradigms of creativity and innovation. These paradigms have manifested themselves in open science (David, 2003), open-access publishing (Suber, 2007), open innovation (Chesbrough, 2006) and open education (Seely Brown, 2008). In addition, in construction, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of creativity (Skibniewski and Zavadskas, 2013). The new types of knowledge creation and management have been extensively studied within project-based industries (such as construction), where the effective management of external knowledge is of the utmost importance. As even traditional industries are becoming outside-in (Klinc et al., 2010), research provides empirical evidence of the ability to obtain significant benefits with IT-based knowledge management (Yang et al., 2012). As noted by Dave and Koskela (2009), social networking applications as well as other collaborative peoplebased services are transforming the way people share ideas. In the specific area of the built environment the developments toward more open organizations result in better collection of data and the capturing of external tacit knowledge. Social media tools are a useful tool to do so. 1.1. Research objectives The above developments are valid for construction and for the shaping of the built environment. Although there surely are skills and knowledge that one cannot expect to find with lay people, there are areas where the general population could contribute significantly. One such area is urban planning. Urban planning concerns the space in which people live, in which they perhaps have been living for decades and about which they may have historic memories for centuries. This area seems to be one such area where the ideas of mass creativity and innovation could be tested. It has already been demonstrated (see Section 2.5) that it is possible to include the public in spatial planning more actively, achieve better response and better coverage, obtain effective public participation in spatial planning, and harvest the knowledge of the public about the local community in which they live. One should combine professional and crowd knowledge. In addition, to do so, one could use social media, which has been designed from the ground up to allow people to collaborate. As reviewed in Section 2, several such systems have already been built. However, rather than solving a problem using state-of-the-art technology, we have been primarily interested in creating a sound conceptual basis for such systems, thus creating a coherent framework that would combine what has been known about participation (Section 2.1 and 2.2) and social networking (Section 2.3) and applied to the field of urban planning (Section 2.4). The goal has been to create a conceptual framework of public participation and verify it in a prototype. From this theoretical approach, we learned there is no one-size-fits-all, and it made us look at various technological components of the system in a very abstract manner. This resulted in an implementation that is flexible and that includes a generative platform into which the social media tools can be quite arbitrarily plugged in or out, on 2

demand, to reach various levels of participation known from the theory of participation by using various social media tools. That also presents an original aspect of this work. 1.2. Research methodology and paper structure Our research combines the theoretical study of creativity (Section 1), collaboration and participation from the literature (Section 2) to form a scientific base for the practical work. An augmented theoretical model for the role of information systems (IS) in open enterprises engaged in participatory creative work is proposed (Section 3). We verify ideas by building a working system and use it in evaluations and day-to-day work (Section 4). The empirical component can therefore be regarded as using an action research methodology. This section sets the stage and describes both the general challenges at hand and specific issues related to the built environment. Section 2 presents the technological background and related scientific work in the areas of participation in general. It examines social networking as a participation tool and explains the participation challenges of urban planning. Section 3 presents an original conceptual framework for linking the traditional role of IS in an organization (in our case, geographic information system (GIS) and related tools) with the tools that use information technology to create an open, participatory organization. Section 4 describes the architectural and practical features of the system that has been built. The prototype is designed as a generative web platform. Users of the platform can generate their own array of Web 2.0 tools adapted to specific projects. Feedback from users and SWOT analysis is presented as well. Section 5 presents the findings from the development process, experiences gained with the prototype, the conclusions and opportunities for further work.

2. Legal, technical and scientific background As discussed in Section 1, urban planning is providing an environment for a case study of social creativity in the following two ways: (1) there are legal obligations to include the public when planning, and (2) the public indeed has tacit knowledge about the space and its use. This public is experienced in using social collaboration tools in their private use of the Internet – using social media applications. In this section, we present the related work in these areas. In the next section, the importance of public participation from a sociological point of view and especially in the procedures of spatial planning was examined through the history of public participation as well as from theoretical grounds, therefore considering legislation that gives the public the right to monitor and participate in the processes of spatial planning. In addition, the effects of classic methods of public participation have been explored, and corresponding technologies, applications and tools of Web 2.0 have been identified. 2.1. Participation Participation, especially participation in planning processes, is a topic that has been discussed in many scientific fields for almost four decades. The pioneer of participation research, Arnstein (1969:216), believes that "the idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principle because it is good for you". Moore and Davis (1997:5) are also very colourful in depicting the perception of people and their understanding of surroundings with an old Chinese proverb (English Language and Usage Stack Exchange, 2017): "Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand.” Participation will be successful if decision makers consider the ideas, suggestions and opinions of the public. Participation increases the power of an individual and allows one to have a say in public affairs (Arnstein, 1969). On the other hand, the decision makers must support participation. If they do not, the results of just formal participation opportunities would be quite unpredictable. In most cases, this can result in public dissatisfaction with the process (Cerar, 2014).

3

There are many theories of participations, and they address different types of participation. Arnstein (1969) split participation into eight levels of the so-called participatory ladder. Analyses of Arnstein’s proposed type of participation have shown that power holders do not support full citizen control. Instead, they give more options to participate only to a particular type of participant (for example, the wealthiest, elders or young people) (Carver et al., 2001). However, by doing so, individuals are deprived of participation, which turns off various civil initiatives and local associations (Sieber, 2006). The public does not trust a limited public participatory system with such a level of participation (“virtual participation”). For this reason, a part of the public no longer wants to participate (Kyem, 1998). Waidemann and Femers (1993) presented a slightly different type of participation ladder. Their ladder has six participation levels (Figure 1). The lowest is "public right to know", followed by "informing the public" and "public right to object". The higher steps on the ladder, namely "public participation in defining interests and determining the agenda” and "public participation in assessing risk and recommending solutions”, provide more participating power to participants. The last step, namely “public partnership and the final decision”, provides maximum participation power to the public. This kind of framing the participation claims that the level of participation increases with the degree of public access to information. The more information is available to the public, the greater is its role in participation and decision-making power.

Figure 1: Public participation ladder after Waidemann and Femers (1993) From the perspective of information technology supported spatial planning, the Waidemann and Femers’ participatory ladder is useful because participation levels are associated with information access. With this

4

ladder, information is the key. Therefore, it is the information in a specific process that is crucial to participants and technology can make that information more readily available. The book "The Community Planning Handbook" (Wates and Brook, 2000) is a fine example of a specific manual that allows urban designers to work with different methods when obtaining public opinion on certain spatial matters or wisdom of the crowd. In the guide, Wates assembled a considerable number of basic principles, scenarios and methods that are used throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that the public is actively involved in the preparation of urban plans and their interventions in urban spaces. These practices can by all means be applied to any country. All these principles, scenarios and methods are traditional ways of active public involvement in community planning without IT support. 2.2. Toward IT-supported participation Tools such as elevation montages, gaming, microplanning workshops, mappings, model buildings, photo surveys, simulations, activity weeks, and design fests are the most effective ways of helping people become involved in physical planning (Wates and Brook, 2000). These tools can be applied to community meetings, special workshops, walks through neighbourhoods and other ways of facilitating meetings and workshops. The problem concerning meetings and workshops is that not all people from a community attend and actively participate. There are various subjective and objective reasons for this issue. On the other hand, if these tools can be accessed on the web from a home computer or mobile device, then we can argue that it is possible to attract more people from communities than in traditional ways. To achieve this, participation tools have to be converted to electronic equivalents. Upon thorough examination and evaluation, it has been concluded that most of these tools can be converted to e-tools using Web 2.0 applications and tools. One example of the differences between classic tools and e-tools is given by a photo survey: participants take photos of their neighbourhood. Photos are later sorted and placed on large boards for other participants to add post-it comments. On the other hand, e-tools, such as Instagram, Facebook or a simple image gallery, can achieve the same objective. Another example is mapping. Participants at a workshop place their suggestions, pictures or ideas on a large map pinned on a large board. GISs (Geographic Information Systems) can be used as an equivalent e-tool. GISs allow for multilayering and for all incoming information to be sorted and analysed, which provides an upgraded and even more transparent method of information retrieval. These tools and 3D computer models of certain spatial solutions can be very complex and can demand a certain degree of expertise, namely a moderator. On the other hand, e-tools can be very simple; chats and forums provide important insight into public opinion and a means of communicating on a large scale to the same extent as more complex GIS or 3D models do. 2.3. Social networking as a tool for participation During the last decade, the phenomenon of Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) has attracted substantial attention, as it was considered a next step and a major evolution of the traditional web from technological and social perspectives. Although it has shaped the Internet as we know it today, Web 2.0 has never been officially defined. Nevertheless, there seems to be a consensus that it is not a product but a trend, a perception of the direction in which the Internet is evolving (Klinc et al., 2009). It can be seen as an evolution of the web driven by technological advances in the software and hardware industry (Bizjak, 2012). This new approach had a direct impact on the emergence of innovative, collaborative and easy-to-use services that shifted the Internet into a participatory platform, therefore enabling people to not only consume but also contribute and produce new content (Bugs et al., 2010). Even more, user-generated content has become the focus of the Internet-based industry and has provided the basis for innovative services (Rinner et al., 2008).

5

All of this has resulted in contemporary on-line applications that not only make tasks such as individual and group on-line learning, communication, collaboration and creation easier but also have the capability of improving the experience using the vast amount of information from the Internet, previous sessions and so-called collective intelligence of its users. As noted by Anderson (2007), concepts such as “cooperation”, “contribution” and “community” are currently present in every aspect of the Internet and are a part of the social network that is emerging directly in front of the users forming it. The emergence of online social networks has enabled users with common interests to form groups and share views and information, which can, under ideal conditions, lead to crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is best described as the use of the collective wisdom of a large group of people to help solve problems. Although this process has been known for centuries, it was again brought into the spotlight with the emergence of online social networks (Pedersen et al., 2013). All of the above paved the way for successful opinion exchange and the formation of interest groups in public participation. Such interest groups, working simultaneously in the interest of a certain special idea (for instance, water purification plant initiatives), are more powerful than an individual, can be better perceived and can subsequently achieve more. Based on extensive research on Web 2.0 tools and non-electronic public participation, e-participation is being established as a necessity of the modern age because of the users' expectations driven by accessible, affordable and easy-to-use applications of the modern web for use in their every-day lives. 2.4. Urban planning “Planning is a process of government which looks to the future for the purpose of influencing the well-being of the people” (Webster, 1958). Although urban planning concerns the physical development of the community, it is also about relationships between government policies and the objectives of some functional program or service. Planning is a never-ending process. First, it is conceived and then develops and matures; however, when society reaches a crisis, it is newly reborn based on new rules and common habits (Marot, 2010). For the public, urban planning is a game of tactics and timing that one must accept to obtain planning permits. There are rules that guide you to the final objective; however, one has no guarantee of winning. It is a win or lose situation. It is a game of national or local politics, and success is all about presenting a case, influencing public opinion and persuading decision makers. The rules for such procedures are written as legislation for various levels of urban planning (national, regional and local). Each level produces policy documents, and the game is to understand which policies are the most relevant (Dijksman, 2006). However, there is more than one party involved in planning. Beside the public, there are also planners, investors, local authorities, etc. Therefore, effective planning is a negotiating process among the affected parties (Friedmann, 1995). In the developed world, legislation requires public participation in spatial planning (European Commission, 2003a; European Commission, 2003b; Marot, 2010; Bizjak, 2012). Planners mostly see these requirements as an obstacle to swifter implementation of their educated, professional ideas. They implement participation reluctantly and rigidly: there is only so much participation as to meet legal requirements (Bizjak, 2012). The public is given limited possibilities to participate, such as proposing changes to master plans or comment planning proposals on public displays in many European countries. In 2006, the European Observation Network, Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) conducted an analysis of space management in the EU countries. The analysis showed that Slovenia, Sweden and UK have good connections between horizontal levels and bad connections between vertical levels of space management systems. Good vertical and horizontal levels can be found in Germany, Finland, Slovakia and other countries, good vertical and bad horizontal levels in Austria and Belgium, and bad connections on both levels in Bulgaria and Norway (ESPON, 2006).

6

Participation is seen more as an instrument to “sell” the plans to the public and smooth their adoption than to actually collect and evaluate ideas that a population has on certain spatial issues. Therefore, various public groups demand to be included in the entire planning process. Such groups want to contribute and to influence the final solution of the planning proposals (Ogorelec, 1995). Planners and decision makers are made liable by legislation to inform the public about spatial planning over the course of events and procedures. Local communities are acting in both ways, as they commission plans and simultaneously directly or indirectly have the power to approve them. Informing the public is often insufficient although formally satisfies legislation. This process takes place on community web sites as notices, therefore informing communities about planning procedure launches and providing communication appeals to present proposals for changes in master plans, invitations to public displays or hearings, and minutes of community council sessions when approving a plan. However, informing the public is only the foundation, the first level on the selected ladder of public participation. If one desires to enable the public to be informed throughout the spatial-planning procedures, communities should provide more detailed communication: informing the public on master plan preparation process time tables, reasons for sudden standstills in procedures, occasional GIS data updates that can also delay plan preparation, etc. Spatial planning is a procedure requiring inclusion of the public: acquiring initiatives and proposals that trigger the procedure of preparation of, or corrections to, master plans and also by forming standpoints in the matters of proposed solutions in public displays. Even more important in planning is the use of the "wisdom of crowds" – the knowledge and the sensibility the public has about the local community, where it lives and in which it takes an active role. Planners see participation as an obstacle and do not realize that they can benefit from the wisdom of the crowd; thus, they do not use this knowledge. In most cases, the problem is that harvesting public knowledge is a time-consuming and expensive process. Workshops have to be organized and questionnaires and other means of acquiring data prepared. Planners prefer to work and decide on the basis of expert studies that communities have made prior to master plans. However, even this is not a rule. Capturing that knowledge can be achieved with various web tools. According to research on the Internet usage in Slovenia, where this project is based, in 2015, 78% of households have access to the Internet, with Internet access available to 73% of individuals from 16 to 74 years of age (SURS, 2015). Of these, 70% have participated in social networks at some time. This indicates that most of the active population that could participate in procedures of spatial-planning has access to the Internet, knows and uses some form of social networking tools and accordingly has a greater ability for active participation. By using social networks in their current form, they are better qualified to access Web 2.0 tools. This was one of the bases for creating a generative platform for public participation. By examining classical methods for harvesting public knowledge and learning about local communities, it has been shown that certain methods can be simply translated to an electronic form and simultaneously used in the generative platform for public participation. Some of these tools are among those of Web 2.0. In the same way that web GIS can be used as a substitute for a charting method or as an electronic map, that elements of social networks can be used as user groups, and that forums can be used as interactive displays or table scheme displays, photo galleries can be used instead of photo analyses or elevation photo montages. 2.5. Points of departure The research on Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) is extensive and has different focuses. We begin this Section with work that focuses on social-theoretical and democratic aspects of PPGIS. We continue with work that was focusing on a particular enabling technology such as GIS, Web and Web 2.0. We conclude with review of work most similar to ours to identify the original aspects of our work.

7

Social-theoretical Public participation in planning is described as the involvement of all affected parties in the process of planning with the goal to influence planning decisions and outcomes. Being multidimensional in nature, this process is critical for democratic planning (Alexander, 2008). That is why planners have to be well versed or at least possess a deep understanding of contemporary philosophy, social work, law, social sciences and civic design (Davidoff, 1965). Gordon et al. (2011) suggested that, instead of designing public processes that attempt to increase the power of the public (often with mixed results), decision bodies should attempt to follow guidelines of immersive planning, which introduces new means of public engagement, provides sustainable dialogs between public and local officials, and shapes government actions in a meaningful way. Li et al. (2007) pointed out an important discrepancy between participation that is required by law on one hand and limited public access to information improving quality of participation on the other. Their proposed solution is in a form of GIS-enabled virtual public meeting space (GEOVPMS) system designed to improve public access to relevant information. A similar approach with collaboration between lay public and experts in preparing environmental reports was taken by Ramos et al. (2014). Brabham (2009) outlined the importance of collective intelligence bringing more creative input into the process of planning; however, he also emphasized that the major challenges facing crowdsourcing include a) knowing when to include or exclude individuals, b) how to address a crowd that is resistant to a crowdsourced task, and c) how to identify localized problems that were given too much weight. Hudson-Smith et al. (2009) came to similar conclusions using crowdsourcing and crowdcasting for neogeography – even though they are helpful, it should be noted that there are many issues regarding quality, accuracy, copyright and trust. Fredericks and Foth (2013) argued that the best approach to public participation is neither traditional nor digital but hybrid, which is both supplementary and complementary. On the other hand, Stern et al. (2009) claimed that, even though web-based participation is an effective complementary means of public participation, it can only increase involvement and participation among those who already participate both in traditional meetings and via the website. A review of the literature showed that research in this field has extensively covered theoretical grounds but mostly lacks the experience gained from public application. Sarjakovski (1998), for example, noted the advantages of 3D models over 2D maps for the public, as they offer a sense of space. Unfortunately, 3D models at the time were not sufficiently mature for general use. That changed in the early 2000s and there were some attempts at participatory systems that addressed 3D visualizations of the problem, for example, 3D visualization of the areas aimed at collecting local knowledge regarding a space (Barton et al., 2005) and 3D visualization of wind power plants using wireframe models and photomontages (Berry et al., 2011). This all lead to much more technology oriented research at the beginning of the century. Technological Peng (2001) summarized that participatory GIS has to be neutral, coupled with a distributed database, offer maps, support analysis, enable communication and collaboration among various stakeholders, and support the expression of opinions and validation of chosen options. Moreover, participatory GIS should be scalable and comply with the standards of the Open GIS consortium (OGC). A key component of a well-designed participatory GIS is the improved presentation of spatial data in the form of maps (Kraak, 2004). Carver (2001) as well as Hansen and Prosperi (2005) claimed that anticipated users of the participatory GIS remain technically proficient users and not the general public. The problem is the technical gap between system operators and the lay public, the latter of which finds participatory GIS too complicated.

8

Most research, applications, and outcomes regarding systems for participation remain based on GIS. Jankowski and Nyerges (2003) tried to identify and evaluate major barriers for successful implementation of GIS-driven participatory decisions. Brown et al. (2012) as well as Bugs et al. (2010), for example, proposed a Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) systems for positioning central activities (such as the collection of waste, recreation, and health) by providing location data using maps and offering the ability to express opinions regarding such services to the general public. Kingston et al. (2000) described a WebGIS system that presented planned areas and offered the general public the possibility to review presented solutions, ask questions and make proposals; additionally, all the activities are logged for further analysis. This concept was extended by Kingston (2007) into a WebGIS system that collected citizens’ initiatives regarding the condition and state of public spaces (such as problems with street lightning and location of waste containers that were not emptied). With the growing number of wind power stations, Simão et al. (2009) introduced a three-level participatory system that offered the ability to provide information to the public, gather responses to provided solutions and to collect acceptable locations of wind turbines from the general public through GIS maps. A similar approach was introduced by Dragićević and Balram (2004) who offered a WebGIS system for planned workshops built upon the “Collaborative Spatial Delphi (CSD) Method”, which allows all planned decisions to be accepted based on open discussion and not on a summary of individual perceptions. Another interesting application is the system for resource allocation during natural or other disasters, where GIS is used as a tool for the analysis and determination of the shortest path to the resource allocation sites (Chen et al., 2011). Butt and Li (2012) made the excellent point that PPGIS does not make the decision itself; rather, it can help improve participation and the decision-making process. With the advances in consumer services offering various ways of presenting spatial data (such as Google Maps and Bing Maps), so users have focus on how these advances might support projects like collaborative mapping and PPGIS (Rouse et al., 2007). Sieber (2006) claimed that PPGIS can be mostly used for the acquisition of spatial knowledge or the wisdom of the crowds. Tapping into that became much easier with the Web and particularly with Web 2.0. Web and Social Media Bugs et al. (2010) reported on results of Web 2.0 PPGIS application usage in Brazil that showed high acceptance among participants who found the tool useful for communication, easy to use and different from traditional meetings full of misinformation and a lack of opinion interchange due to different levels of power and knowledge, the last aspect most likely being the most important. PPGIS, WebGIS and spatial decision support system (SDSS) GIS all facilitate participation using a client-server model of access to GIS. However, in a number of participatory actions, GIS and GIS-based map inputs are not sufficient. The involvement of those potentially affected-by or interested-in a decision is encouraged via a number of methods for cooperation, for example, through blogs, forums, video uploads, and surveys. That is where the potential of Web 2.0 tools is the highest. Evans-Cowley and Hollander (2010) found a limited use of those new technologies for engaging in planning but did not draw firm conclusions on the reason for this result and left the door open for further research. The path into this direction was paved by Butt and Li (2015) who introduced Collaborative Public Participatory geographic information system (Co-PPGIS) based on UML and UML-based Web Engineering (UWE) based on Arnstein as well as Waidemann and Femers’ participatory ladder. Their proposed system is introducing a number of modules and tools with links to their position in participatory ladder, nevertheless the whole system is closed with no options for expansion with additional tools. Our work

9

Our work takes stock of the theoretical findings summarized in the beginning of this Subsection and sees GIS as an essential information foundation. However, it acknowledges that collaborative exploration, flexible knowledge collection and optimum collection of data can only take place in open environments. As a result, we rely on openness of social media and Web 2.0 technology. Developed prototype extends the architecture of modular PPGIS and creates a generative, flexible platform that can be tailored to a particular planning project for optimal external knowledge and information capture. Not only is this platform practical, it can also implement any participation level known from participation theory (Waidemann and Femers, 1993) because our development was guided by the theory itself. In Section 3 and 4 we describe in detail the original aspects of our work. In Section 3 we are describing an original theoretical framework that links social media technology with public participation theory. In Section 4 we present the prototype that extends the modular PPGIS idea into a flexible, generative system.

3. Conceptual Framework In the sections above, arguments were made for opening up the design process in which the built environment is being shaped. They considered legal needs, theories of participation, mass creativity and technological progress. This section describes a generic conceptual framework for socially creative environments in engineering. The framework is on the one hand based on the three-tier architecture (Eckerson, 1995). This is a model of software that identifies three functions: presentation, logic and data. Ideally, they would be physically separated into tiers. • • •

The presentation tier provides the information to the end user and the user interface. The logic tier does most of the processing work and, most importantly, includes the business logic. The data tier is concerned with the persistent storage of the data.

Although each piece of software can be understood in this way, the three-tier architecture is particularly well suited for designing client-server systems that are usually on the Internet. Architecturally GIS are client-server systems. Because we are building our participatory system on top of GIS, using the three-tier client-server architecture overall was logical. On the other hand, the framework is based on Laudon’s model of the role of IS in an enterprise (Laudon and Laudon, 1995). The model is based on a view of an organization including its core business (such as building roads), supporting processes (such as accounting, human resources, and finance) and organizational environment (such as customers, suppliers, stockholders, and authorities). Because the supporting processes are similar across many industries, they were the first for which IS were developed. Later, IS started to support core processes such as planning and designing. These are traditional IS. IS existed to support in-house activities in an organization but not its relations to the outside (Figure 2).

10

system / organization / project boundary

outside world

CRM, ERP, BIM, CAD, Doc.M, ProjM

traditional information systems client

professional

Figure 2: Digitally closed organization based on Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, building information management (BIM) systems, document management systems or project management systems.

Recently, organizations have started to use IS to open up to their environment. This opening up is interesting because socially creative construction requires the opening up of organizations toward different stakeholders, including the general population. Firms today have many digital interfaces for their core and supporting activities. Building information model servers are examples of opening up core activities to partners and subcontractors. Electronic billing and invoicing is an example of opening up non-core activities. Digital interfaces for the general public, though, are even more recent. This begins with the establishing of organizations’ Web pages, followed by contact email accounts, social media presence on Facebook and Twitter etc. The motive behind these developments, in addition to simply fashion, was related to marketing and the general public image of the organizations (Figure 3).

system / organization / project boundary

internal social media system

outside world

website, Twitter, Facebook, blog, more ?

public social media system others

traditional information systems client

professional

Figure 3: Digitally open organization.

The final stage of this digital opening up of organizations is the opening up toward enhancing their innovation and creativity processes with ideas from the outside. This calls for two enhancements of Figure 3, shown in bold in Figure 4: first, public social media systems that would support creativity and innovation have to be generally richer, with many different services, depending on the type of collaboration envisioned. Second, the links between the public social media systems and the internal traditional IS and internal social media systems must be substantially more elaborate, therefore exchanging complex engineering or spatial data. These two aspects are the focus of the development in our work and are shown in red in Figure 4.

11

outside world

system / organization / project boundary

public social media system

internal social media system

others

traditional information systems client

professional

Figure 4: Organization digitally open for social creativity. Problem areas in red.

The general approach to addressing the opening up of an organization was to extend its three-tier architecture of IS with modules on the presentation tier, which is specifically designed to provide a suitable interface to the public that the organization is trying to reach. The schematic architecture in Figure 5 shows the existing three-tier architecture of an organization’s IS (right). The figure shows the toolbox of social services (left). It also shows the three main types of actors that will use the new system (top, from left to right): • • •

The administrator that will select the social services from the toolbox and integrate them with the IS. The public that will use social service tools as an interface to the organization’s IS. The professionals who work for the organization and mostly use the in-house IS as support.

admin

social servict tool x

social service tool z

social service tool y

public

social servicet tool 1

professio nal

social service tool 2

professional sw. presentation

project, enterprise information systems (e.g. GIS, BIM)

business logic

toolbox data

data

Figure 5: Schematic architecture.

The following section describes the architectural and implementation details of the systems that have been developed. The systems’ flexibility allows for the tools from the toolbox to be combined in such a way that a particular level on the participation ladder (Figure 1) can be achieved.

4. The Prototype of a generative platform for participation A model of a generative platform was created based on legal requirements (Section 2.4), on the theory of public participation (Section 2.1) – choosing an adequate ladder of participation that allows the public to be integrated in the processes of spatial planning – and on a survey of classical methods of harvesting the "wisdom of crowds". The model is based on the tools, technologies and services of Web 2.0 (Section 2.3) and follows the general framework presented in Section 3.

12

A survey of similar systems has shown that such systems tend to work on only one component of knowledge harvesting and on a single project. Examples are SoftGIS using web polls (Kahila and Kytta, 2010), Argoo MAP using GIS as a basis for connected discussions and spatial data (Rinner, 2006; Meng and Malczewski, 2010), and the OPUS forum concept for collecting public opinion (Staffans et al., 2010). Our goal, on the other hand, was to create a generative platform that will be used for public participation in different procedures of planning, therefore being composed, by demand, of different participatory elements supporting different levels of the participation ladder (Section 2.1). The public can use this platform to shape policies and to achieve goals, therefore aiming at improving local living environments. Potential investors can similarly use the platform in certain communities because it can assist them in testing and focusing public opinion. It was necessary to offer different tools for public participation for different planning projects. To enable a choice of tools, the system has to have a modular concept. This also allows optional tools and upgrading the platform with new tools. The users that will use the system are also participants in the planning process. They are divided into four types by their roles in the planning process (Adams, 1994): • General public, local groups, non-government organizations (NGO), etc. • Planners and experts from various fields of spatial planning, • Decision makers, local government, etc. • Stakeholders, investors, etc. All these participants can perform their expert or voluntary roles through the Web 2.0 tools and fulfil the demands on them (Table 1). Those tools can be linked to the selected step on the participatory ladder (from Figure 1) and to the demands related to that step (from Wates and Brook, 2000; Delakorda, 2003; Hansen and Prosperi, 2005). In this way, the Table 1 presents the bridge between participation theory and our web 2.0 based technological solution. Table 1: Overview of participation ladder steps, user demands and technologies. Step on the participatory ladder Public partnership in final decision

Role in the planning process Public, investors, decision makers

Demand

Tool

Selecting or voting between variants of final solutions Suggesting and evaluating the suggested solutions

Decision support system, e-voting system, web questionnaires Web participatory GIS, web questionnaires

Public participation in assessing risk and recommending solutions Public participation in defining interest and determining the agenda

Public and investors

Public and investors

Suggesting ideas, solutions, etc.

Web participatory GIS

Planners

Entering suggested planned ideas and proposals Harvesting knowledge of crowds Monitoring public opinion The expression of views, interviews, opinions, asking questions about

Web participatory GIS

Planners Decision makers Public right to object

Public, investors and planners

13

Web participatory GIS, web questionnaires Web questionnaires Forum, blog, wiki

the planned interventions Public, investors and planners Informing the public

Public and investors

Public right to know

Public and investors

Expressing views (personal or opinion of an expert) Informing public on master plan preparation process time-tables, informing on reasons for sudden standstills in procedure, etc.

Blog

Learning of spatial planning procedures

Video gallery, e-learning

Web page

Based on earlier work on systems for online participation (Shiffer, 1992; Howard, 1998; Jankowski and Nyerges, 2003; Carver, 2003; Rinner, 2006; Watermolen, 2008; Lieske et al., 2009; Chin, 2009; Kahila and Kytta, 2010; Meng and Malczewski, 2010; Staffans et al., 2010; Sulonen in Botero, 2010; Kanervo, 2010; Horelli and Wallin, 2010; Wu et al., 2010; De Longueville, 2010; Amirian et al., 2010; Tomaszewski et al., 2011), we formulated the following architectural and technical requirements for the creation of the generative participation platform: • The use of standard technologies from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), OGC, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and others ensures that the data formats are portable and usable with standard Web services; • Support for different types of communication (concurrent, non-concurrent) to ensure greater responsiveness and usability of the system; • Modular system (possibility of adding or removing modules); • Multilingual interface that facilitates processing of originally placed language system with several other (German, French, etc.); • Operation on several client-side platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac OS, IOS, Android, etc.); • System ensuring security of personal and spatial data; • Support of social networks features (making one’s own profile, networking, exchanging of views in message forms, photo and videos, etc.); • Use of open-source Web-based GIS tools that support current standards in this field.

4.1. Architecture and prototype A prototype of a generative platform for public participation in spatial planning was made based on the threetier client-server-type architecture and consists of a presentation layer, the level of business logic and data level (Figure 6).

14

Figure 6: Three-tier client-server-type architecture of DNN (adapted from Walker et al., 2009) The basis of the working prototype is a DotNetNuke (DNN) Content Management System (CMS) (Sellers, 2009; Washington, Lackey, 2010). DNN CMS community is a modular open-source code system that allows installation of optional modules and thus adding new functionalities to the system. Modules are based on the Microsoft .NET technology, all using MS SQL databases (Figure 7).

Figure 7: CMS system architecture (after Boiko, 2005)

15

The basic set of available modules in our prototype consists of Blog module, Forum module, Chat module, Questionnaires module and Gallery module for posting photos and video files. The functionality of the prototype can be further enhanced with additional modules that have to be programmed and added to the platform by a web administrator. The generative participatory platform can serve multiple projects as sub-sites of the platform. Every sub-site can have different URL and can be independent of the platform but can use all of the modules installed on the site platform. Every registered user who wants to use the platform for the participatory project can initiate a new project (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Use case UWE diagram for adding a new project to the generative platform.

After storing a new requested project to the database using the platform, the web administrator receives the request to generate a new sub-site for the project (Figure 9). The web administrator generates the new sub-site and adds the requested tools in the system. After initial testing, the new sub-site is ready for use and the initiating user is notified. Depending of the user technical knowledge the web administrator can teach the user how to use the sub-site and the tools that are installed on the site.

16

Figure 9: Activity diagram for adding a new project with generation of the sub-site to the generative platform.

After establishing it, the initiating user can open the sub-site to the public in order to address the spatial or urban problem. The platform enables secure login with external providers such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+. Unregistered users are unable to participate in the platform. This is a preventing measure blocking anonymous and provocative or even insulting users that prevent others from taking participation seriously and with an honest motivation. However, using the platform through registration with external providers or without them is much friendlier than registration with official digital certificates. People use such certificates reluctantly, and we are finding that they are not a suitable way to access a platform for public participation (Figure 10).

17

Figure 10: Activity diagram showing possibilities of registration and user accounts login in different identity providers (Google+, Twitter in Facebook).

The CMS does not include a module for a social participatory GIS. Therefore, the social participatory GIS is located on a dedicated server and connected to the platform through a CMS iframe. The iframe module enables data transfer between the CMS database and the social participatory GIS. A land information system, which is the basis for enabling public participation, is connected to the social participatory GIS either through web spatial services (Web Feature Service (WFS), Web Mapping Service (WMS) and Web Coverage Service (WCS)) or by being installed in the spatial database in the GIS server (Figure 11).

18

Figure 11: Web GIS with a graphic input of an initiative.

Unfortunately, not all spatial data that constitute the land information system are available through web services, which makes it difficult to acquire data and hinders the integration of the data. The problem that emerged while developing the prototype was that Web 2.0 tools themselves do not enable position coordinate input (Li et al., 2007). Therefore, a module was developed for this purpose, therefore allowing textual inputs from some tools (e.g., blog tool, forum tool and journal tool) for spatial coordinates. In addition, another module that provided the ability to examine these inputs on a map was developed (Figure 12).

19

Figure 12: Module for displaying georeferenced discussions map.

It was ascertained that making such a platform demands expert knowledge, technical infrastructure and an independent technical support to take care of the system and give impartial support to system users. 4.2. Usage and experiences

The prototype was developed as a research project of The Urban Planning institute of the Republic of Slovenia (UIRS) with the help from the Chair of Construction Informatics, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering of University of Ljubljana. After initial tests, it was deployed at the UIRS infrastructure. Now it is being operated from within the infrastructural group at the Institute, providing all the necessary infrastructure and knowledge for the support and further development of the platform as well as all the necessary expert knowledge on urban planning to provide the platform with a repository of expertise. The repository helps users learn about basic terms regarding urbanism, processes and procedures regarding spatial planning. The prototype had been tested by the experts in the field of urban planning working at the Institute (urban planners, architects, landscape architects, geographers, sociologists etc.). It was established that the prototype is mature and prepared for real-life application. Nevertheless, there is some work left to be performed on the repository of knowledge as well as on documentation. The range of available tools would have to be expanded,

20

and some existing tools would have to be upgraded at least with coordinates. The testing has shown that the system is simple enough for use and is comprehensive to users with different levels of expertise in urbanism and information technologies. The test group understood the intent of the platform and its role intuitively. The system was tested on two different test project scenarios. Both tests were conducted using role playing technique where different focus groups of professionals (experts) played different roles. In the first project, one group of professionals played the role of local public who wanted to participate in a community master plan preparation process and the second group played the planners who initiated the project. In the second project, they played the role of concerned citizens who wanted to get public opinion on their side and presented the municipality with their ideas and suggestions about the wastewater treatment plan. The initiation of the first project scenario originated from a planner in an urban planning firm. This office wanted to gather knowledge from the local population and simultaneously enable the local public to participate in a community master plan preparation process. They selected a forum for posting questions about the plan, about preparations or commenting the procedures. A blog was set for planners to write about planning procedures, formulate expert opinions, give various explanations to the public, etc. Planners expected to collect collect crowd-sourced wisdom using GIS, web questionnaires and photo galleries. The professionals’ who played the role of the public took pictures and stored them in the gallery where commented pictures from planners could also be found. With the e-learning module, they learned about the preparation procedures for a municipality master plan. They also answered a few web questionnaires about the living conditions in the planned area and the proposed solutions for the presented urban-specific problem. The role they played was not active one. Their task was to provide a “crowd knowledge” about the environment for initiator of the project. The initiator of the second project was a group of concerned citizens – a public initiative wanting to achieve a result whereby a community would recognize the necessity to invest in a wastewater treatment plant. This initiative group wanted a GIS environment to be accessible for entering possible locations for the new wastewater treatment plant in question, an online forum for discussions about the plant, a blog for expert opinions about where to locate and what type of a plant the municipality needed, and finally a web questionnaire for public opinion about the necessity to build the wastewater treatment plant. In the second project, the professionals who played the role of concerned citizens had a different, more active role. Their role was to educate themselves about the wastewater treatment plant operations, pros and cons, to enter their preferred location of the wastewater treatment plant and their suggestions and agreement about the whole idea of the wastewater treatment plant. The test projects scenarios showed that professionals who played different roles benefited from various tools they were using which were provided by the generative platform. The group that played the planners obtained knowledge and feedback about the environment in which the “public” (the group of professionals that played the role of the public) live and work, their habits and certain habit patterns. On the other hand, the group of professionals that played the role of the public received some clarifications about the procedures and solutions in urban plans in general. In addition, they made some reasonable suggestions that were partially considered by “planners”. In the second project case, the group of professionals who played concerned citizens managed to get public opinion on their side and presented the municipality with their ideas and suggestions about the wastewater treatment plan. As a part of the generative platform, there were lively debates about the pros and cons regarding the necessity and location of the wastewater treatment plant on the social network tools. They were also empowered by the use of public information embedded in the GIS. Experiences of the participative users of all available roles have been collected through closing discussion forums. The analysis of the discussions resulted in a SWOT table (Table 2).

21

Table 2: SWOT based on results from closing discussion forums.

External

Internal

Positive

Negative

STRENGTHS: • Variety of tools/modules available. • Extensibility with additional modules. • Usability across devices and operating systems. • Suitable for (collecting public opinion, collecting crowd knowledge, empowering public or NGO’s …).

WEAKNESSES: • The platform must be operated by a public body to ensure the continuity and professional independence of the project. • Some tools like GIS are more technically demanding.

OPPORTUNITIES: • Can be used as e-learning repository of videos and documents about urban planning and relative disciplines.

THREATS: • Some tools are not open source. • Lack of web GIS data services in the field of spatial data.

When this article had been prepared, this very platform was used in a phase of an urban-sociology EU project Human Cities at the Institute. The task was to give public an opportunity to share photographies of their neighborhoods online. Each photography was fitted with attributes that were gathered through an online form, guiding contributors through relevant questions about their contribution (theme, photography atmosphere, other information about neighborhood). All uploaded photographies had been put in a web gallery of the project and were evaluated by jury, who awarded best contributions. For that task, the experts from the Institute infrastructural group had created a new project on the platform. Within that project, they made a sub-portal with gallery tools, additional tool in a form of an on-line questionnaire (Figure 13) and another one for picture evaluation (Figure 14). The sub-portal was set up in few hours, new tools added in a week. The questionnaire within the tools enabled public to take pictures with a mobile device or to add them from computer. The tool also added spatial coordinates if the device had been able to provide them. Otherwise the user had been asked to enter the name of the neighborhood which was then translated by Google Map services to spatial coordinates. The jury tool was divided in five categories. Each jury member ranked top three pictures with 5, 4, or 3, 5 being the best. During the duration of two-month phase of the project 172 pictures were collected from 79 users. There were 52 different neighborhoods presenting pictures in five different descriptive categories (most pleasant place in my neighborhood, professions in my neighborhood, my neighbor, borders of my neighborhood and shared values in my neighborhood). During the time of the project phase duration there had been 675 users visiting the subportal, making 1183 sessions, and 2859 page views with a 62% bounce rate. The users used desktop computers (74%), mobile devices (22%) and tablets (4%) for that 1183 sessions. There were no major problems with the use of the questionnaire tool, but there were some problems with the on-site registration especially with elderly users (65+). The registration consisted of an on-site registration form and confirmation of the registration by clicking the conformation link in the return e-mail from the site. Some of that return e-mails had namely ended in the junk mail folder, and many elderly people were not aware of the mail or couldn’t find it. But overall satisfaction with the questionnaire and the jury tools was good. The users namely had been also asked to express their opinion on the portal and the prevalent answers were that with some minor modifications the tools are useful for many different picture capturing and jury tasks.

22

Figure 13: Mobile device screen capture from on-line questionnaire for the EU project.

23

Figure 14: Tool for jury task.

5. Conclusions and future work We presented a conceptual framework for the open designing of built environments with a focus on how to tap into the original and creative ideas of outsiders. Based on this framework, a prototype was built to capture the crowd-sourced wisdom when shaping built environments. Theories of participation enumerate several levels of participation. Because no one size fits all, a generative platform that contains a set of social media tools that can be plugged into the presentation tier of an organization’s existing IS was built. In our case, these were mostly GIS systems; however, one could envision a similar solution also with a building information model server (BIM server) in the lower tiers. 5.1. Findings The concepts were proven by building a successful prototype. The use of our prototype showed that it is indeed very easy to both set up a participatory spatial planning system by enhancing a spatial planning project with social tools as well as to assist a bottom-up civil initiative in creating a web-based platform that includes open public information. Typically, an administrator could do this in a matter of hours. Because familiar paradigms of social media were implemented, there was a very smooth technical learning curve for the lay population as well as experts. There was a need, however, to provide for the education of the lay population about some key ideas of spatial planning, and teaching modules had to be provided. The advantages of this platform are mostly in terms of flexibility, the ease of adding new tools, developing and upgrading those tools in the future, and the versatility of the platform to perform different tasks for collecting public opinion, for collecting public knowledge about the community that experts are looking for, for the public itself, as well as for augmenting the public's empowerment against the interests of investors and local authorities. The platform’s flexibility and extendibility are due to the framework, which combined the theory of participation with the theories of IS and social media tools.

24

5.2. Future work The Internet is constantly developing, and new tools and paradigms that can be used for public participation are emerging daily. It is necessary to monitor these developments and, if appropriate, integrate them into the generative platform. However, the general framework and architecture will continue to be valid for quite some time because they are based on proven, traditional ideas about IS – the three-tier architecture and the role of IS in an organization. In addition, the concept is based on theories of participation that pre-date social media. By developing new tools and upgrading existing tools, the platform will continue to evolve. It will attract users who will leave digital trails in these platforms. These trails – what people contributed and what ideas and suggestions they had – will provide another layer of “big data” related to space. Currently, the big data that we have on the built environment are what the environment looks like and what it is. Such systems will gather information about how people understand the environment and what they want it to be and thus present another interesting topic of study. The combination of both will lead to better planned environments and the use of a resource – space – that is limited and finite.

6. Acknowledgements 7. References

Adams, D. (1994). Urban planning and the development process. Routledge, London, UK. Alexander, E. (2008). ‘Public Participation in Planning—A Multidimensional Model: The Case of Israel’. Planning Theory & Practice 9 (1): 57–80. doi:10.1080/14649350701843853. Amirian, P., Alesheikh, A. A. and Bassiri, A. (2010). Standards-based, interoperable services for accessing urban services data for the city of Tehran. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 34, No. 4 (July): 309–321. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology & Standards Watch. Available at: www.jisc.ac.uk (accessed 28. 08. 2015). Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of The American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35: 216–224. DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225. Barton, J., Plume, J. and Parolin, B. (2005). Public participation in a spatial decision support system for public housing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems Vol. 29 (2005), pp. 630–652. Elsevier. Doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2005.03.002. Berry, R., Fry, R., Higgs, G. and Langford, M. (2011). Web-based GIS Approaches to Enhance Public Participation in Wind Farm Planning. Transactions in GIS, 2011, 15(2): 147–172. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Doi: 10.1111/j.14679671.2011.01240.x. Bizjak, I. (2012). Improving public participation in spatial planning with Web 2.0 tools. Urbani izziv, 23(1), pp. 112–124. DOI: 10.5379/urbaniizziv-en-2012-23-01-004. Boiko, B. (2005). Content Management Bible, 2nd edition. Willey Publishing, Inc. Indianapolis, USA. Brabham, Daren C. (2009). ‘Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects’. Planning Theory 8 (3): 242–62. doi:10.1177/1473095209104824.

25

Brown, G., Montag, J.M. and Lyon, K. (2012). Public Participation GIS: A Method for Identifying Ecosystem Services, Society & Natural Resources, 25:7, 633-651, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.621511. Routledge. Bugs, G., Granell, C., Fonts, O., Huerta, J. and Painho, M. (2010). An assessment of Public Participation GIS and Web 2.0 technologies in urban planning practice in Canela, Brazil. Cities, 27(3), 172-181. Butt, M. and Li, S. (2012). Developing a Web-Based, Collaborative PPGIS Prototype to Support Public Participation. Applied Geomatics 4 (3): 197–215. doi:10.1007/s12518-012-0085-1. Butt, M. and Li, S. (2015). UML-based requirement modeling of Web online synchronous collaborative public participatory GIS. Applied Geomatics, 7(4), 203-242. Carver, S. (2001). Public participation using web-based GIS. Guest editorial. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2001, volume 28, pages 803-804. DOI:10.1068/b2806ed. Pion publication. Carver, S. (2003). The Future of Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Information: developing a research agenda for 21st Century. Illinois, ZDA, Journal of the Urban and Regional Information System Association, Vol. 15, Special Issue: 61–71. Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R. and Turton, I. (2001). Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 28: 907–921. DOI: 10.1068/b2751t. Cerar, A. (2014). From reaction to initiative: Potentials of contributive participation. Urbani izziv, 25(1), pp. 93– 106. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-002. Chen, A.Y., Peña-Mora, F. and Ouyang, Y. (2011). A collaborative GIS framework to support equipment distribution for civil engineering disaster response operations. Automation in Construction Vol. 20 (2011) pp. 637–648. Elsevier. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press. Chin, R. (2009). The Mainport Planning Suite: Planning Support Software for Studio-Based Planning. The GeoJournal Library, Vol. 95: 295–315. Springer. Dave, B. and Koskela, L. (2009). Collaborative knowledge management—A construction case study. Automation in Construction, 18(7), 894-902. DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.015. David, P. A. (2003). The economic logic of “open science” and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information: a primer. The role of the public domain in scientific and technical data and information: 19-34. Davidoff, P. (1965). ‘Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4): 331–38. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187. De Longueville, B. (2010). Community-ased geoportals: The next generation? Concepts and methods for the geospatial Web 2.0. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 34, No. 4 (July): 299–308. Delakorda, S. (2003). Elektronska demokracija v refleksiji izbranih politoloških kategorij: politične participacije, politične moči in politične akcije. V: Lukšič, A. A. (ur.), Oblak, T. (ur.) Knjižna zbirka Hermes: S poti v digitalno

26

demokracijo, str. 81–98. Ljubljana, Univerza v https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-4DBVXPGA/

Ljubljani,

Fakulteta

za

družbene

vede.

Dijksman, K. (2006). The planning game, How to win planning permission. Ovolo Books Ltd, Great Britain. Dragićević, S. and Balram, S. (2004). A Web GIS collaborative framework to structure and manage distributed planning processes. J. Geograph Syst (2004) 6:133–153. Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/s10109-004-0130-7. Eckerson, W. W. (1995). Three Tier Client/Server Architecture: Achieving Scalability, Performance, and Efficiency in Client Server Applications. Open Information Systems 10, 1 (January): 3(20). Evans-Cowley, J. and Hollander, J. (2010). ‘The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-Based Participation Tools’. Planning Practice & Research 25 (3): 397–408. doi:10.1080/02697459.2010.503432. ESPON project 2.3.2 (2006). Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level. Luxembourg. European Commission (2003a). Directive 2003/4/ES on public access to environmental information. Official Journal of the European Union L 041. Brussels. European Commission (2003b). Directive 2003/35/ES on providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment. Official Journal of the European Union L 156/14. Brussels. Florida, R. (2005). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, Basic Books. Fredericks, J. and Foth, M. (2013). ‘Augmenting Public Participation: Enhancing Planning Outcomes through the Use of Social Media and Web 2.0’. Australian Planner 50 (3): 244–56. doi:10.1080/07293682.2012.748083. Friedmann, J. (1995). Planning in the Public Domain: Discourse and Praxis. Classic Readings in Urban Planning, (Edt.) Stein J. M., McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. Gordon, E., Schirra, S. and Hollander, J. (2011). ‘Immersive Planning: A Conceptual Model for Designing Public Participation with New Technologies’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38 (3): 505–19. doi:10.1068/b37013. Greenspan, A. (2004). Remarks on Intellectual property rights at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Economic Summit, Stanford, California, February 27, 2004, Federal Reserve, Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200402272/ (accessed 28. 8. 2015). Hansen, H.S. and Prosperi, D.C. (2005). Citizen participation and Internet GIS—Some recent advances. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (2005) 617–629. Elsevier. Hudson-Smith, A., Batty, M., Crooks, A. and Milton, R. (2009). ‘Mapping for the Masses Accessing Web 2.0 Through Crowdsourcing’. Social Science Computer Review 27 (4): 524–38. doi:10.1177/0894439309332299. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American economic review: 519-530. Horelli, L. and Wallin, S. (2010). Developing a New Approach to E-planning Within Community Development – The case of Ubiquitous Helsinki. Digital tools in participatory planning. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland.

27

Howard, D. (1998). Geographic Information Technologies and Community Planning: Spatial Empowerment and Public Participation. Project Varenius Specialist Meeting on Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation GIS. Available at: www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/howard.html (accessed 28. 8. 2015). Jankowski, P. and Nyerges, T. (2003). Toward a Framework for Research on Geographic Information – Supported Participatory Decision – Making. Illinois, ZDA, Journal of the Urban and Regional Information System Association, Vol. 15, Special Issue: 9–17. Kahila, M. and Kytta, M. (2010). SoftGIS as a Bridge-Builder in Collaborative Urban Planning. Digital tools in participatory planning. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland. Kanervo, A. (2010). The Users as Co-producers on a Neighbourhood Website – The local perspective to ICT-tools and urban planning. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A. and Turton, I. (2000). Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems Vol. 24 (2000) pp. 109-125. Elsevier. Kingston, R. (2007). Public Participation in Local Policy Decision-making: The Role of Web-based Mapping. The Cartographic journal Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 138–144, ICA Special Issue 2007. The British Cartographic Society. Klinc, R., Turk, Ž. and Dolenc, M. (2009). Engineering collaboration 2.0: requirements and expectations, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Vol. 14, Special Issue Next Generation Construction IT: Technology Foresight, Future Studies, Roadmapping, and Scenario Planning, pg. 473-488. Available at: www.itcon.org/2009/31 (accessed 28. 8. 2015). Klinc, R., Turk, Ž. and Dolenc, M. (2010). ICT enabled communication in construction 2.0. Pollack periodica, 5(1), 109-120. Kraak, M.J. (2004). The role of the map in a Web-GIS environment. Journal of Geographical Systems June 2004, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 83-93. Springer-Verlag. Kyem, P. A. K. (1998). Promoting local community participation in forest management through the application of Geographic Information Systems. An experience from southern Ghana. Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation GIS, 15.-17. October, Santa Barbara, USA. Laudon, K. C. and Laudon, J. P. (1995). Management information systems: organization and technology. PrenticeHall, Inc. Li, S., Guo, X., Ma, X., and Chang, Z. (2007). Towards GIS-enabled virtual public meeting space for public participation. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 73(6), 641–649. Lieske, S. N., Mullen, S. and Hamerlinck, J. D. (2009). Enhancing Comprehensive Planning with Public Engagement and Planning Support Integration. The GeoJournal Library, Vol. 95: 295–315. Springer. Marot, N. (2010). An assessment of the role of spatial planning legislation in the Slovenian spatial planning system, Doctoral thesis. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering. Meng, Y. and Malczewski, J. (2010). Web-PPGIS Usability and Public Engagement: A Case Study in Canmore, Alberta, Canada. UIRISA Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1: 55–64.

28

Moore, C. N. and Davis, R. (1997). Participation tools for better land-use planning. Sacramento, USA, Centre for livable communities. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Available at: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (accessed 28. 8. 2015). Ogorelec, B. (1995). Komuniciranje z javnostjo, priročnik za urbaniste (Communication with the public, handbook for planners). Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Pedersen, J., Kocsis, D., Tripathi, A., Tarrell, A., Weerakoon, A., Tahmasbi, N. and De Vreede, G. J. (2013). Conceptual foundations of crowdsourcing: a review of IS research. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 579-588). IEEE. Peng, Z.-R. (2001). Internet GIS for public participation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 28, No. 6: 889–905. DOI: 10.1068/b2750t. Pion publication. Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, Penguin Books. Popper, K. S. (2012). The open society and its enemies. Routledge. Ramos, T. B., Martins, I. P., Martinho, A. P., Douglas, C. H., Painho, M. and Caeiro, S. (2014). An open participatory conceptual framework to support State of the Environment and Sustainability Reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 158-172. Rinner, C. (2006). Argumentation mapping in collaborative spatial decision-making. Dragičević, S. (Edt.), Balram, S. (Edt.) Collaborative GIS: 85-102. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing. Rinner, C., Keßler, C. and Andrulis, S. (2008). The use of Web 2.0 concepts to support deliberation in spatial decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(5), 386-395. Rocha, E. (1997). A ladder of enpowerment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 17, No. 1: 31–44. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X9701700104. Rouse, L.J., Bergeron, S.J. and Harris, T.M. (2007). Participating in the Geospatial Web: Collaborative Mapping, Social Networks and Participatory GIS. The Geospatial Web. Part of the series Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing pp 153-158. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84628-827-2_14. Springer International Publishing AG. Sarjakoski, T. (1998). Networked GIS for public participation - emphasis on utilizing image data. Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 381-392. Elsevier. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Vol. 55. Transaction publishers. Seely Brown, J. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause review 43.1 (2008): 16-20. Sellers, M. (2009). Professional DotNetNuke Module Programming. Wiley Publishing, Inc. Indianapolis, USA. Shiffer, M. J. (1992). Towards a collaborative planning system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 19: 709–722.

29

Sieber, R. (2006). Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96:3, 491-507, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x. Routledge. Simão A., Densham P.J. and Haklay M. (2009). Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 90 (2009) pp. 2027–2040. Elsevier. Skibniewski, M. J. and Edmundas, K. Z. (2013). Technology development in construction: a continuum from distant past into the future. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 19.1: 136-147. Stern, E., Ori, G. and Tal, S. (2009). ‘Web-Based and Traditional Public Participation in Comprehensive Planning: A Comparative Study’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36 (6): 1067–85. doi:10.1068/b34113. Suber, P. (2007). Open access overview. Available at: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm (accessed 28. 8. 2015) Sulonen, J. S. and Botero, A. (2010). The Urban Mediator as a Tool for Public Participation – A case of collaboration between designers and city planners. Digital tools in participatory planning. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland. Staffans, A., Rantanen, H. and Nummi, P. (2010). Online Environments Shake up Urban Planning – Developing Local Internet Forums. Digital tools in participatory planning. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland. Tomaszewski, B., Blanford, J., Ross, K., Pezanowski, S. and MacEachren, A. M. (2011). Supporting geographicallyaware web document foraging and sensemaking. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 35, No. 3 (May): 192–207. Elsevier. Turk, Ž. (2001). Internet Information and Communication Systems for Civil Engineering - A Review, in B.H.V. Topping (ed.), Civil and Structural Engineering Computing: 2001, pp. 1-26, Saxe-Coburg Publications. Waidemann, I. and Femers, S. (1993). Public participation in waste management decision making: Analysis and management of conflicts. Journal of Hazardous Meterials, Vol. 33, No. 3: 355–368. DOI: 10.1016/03043894(93)85085-S. Walker, S., Scarbeau, B., Hardy, D., Schultes S. and Morgan, R. (2009). Professional DotNetNuke®5. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, USA. Washington, M. and Lackey, I. (2010). Building Websites with DotNetNuke 5. Packt Publishing. Birmingham, UK. Watermolen, D. J. (2008). Internet and GIS Tools for Environmental Management: The Wisconsin DNR Program. Washington, ZDA, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wates, N. and Brook, J. (2000). The Community Planning Handbook. London, Great Britain, Earthscan Publications Ltd. Webster, D. H. (1958). Urban Planning and Municipal Public Policy. Harper & Brothers, New York, USA. Wu, H., He, Z. and Gong, J. (2010). A virtual globe-based 3D visualization and interactive framework for public participation in urban planning processes. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 34, No. 4 (July): 291–298.

30

Yang, L. R., Chen, J. H. and Wang, H. W. (2012). Assessing impacts of information technology on project success through knowledge management practice. Automation in Construction, 22, 182-191. DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.016. Web English Language & Usage Stack Exchange (2017). https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/226886/originof-i-hear-and-i-forget-i-see-and-i-remember-i-do-and-i-understand/ (Accessed 17.04.2017) SURS (2015). Available at: http://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/5509/ (Accessed 28. 8. 2015)

31