A Geospatial Tangible User Interface to Support Stakeholder

Participation in Urban Planning

Val

erie Maquil

, Lu

ıs De Sousa

, Ulrich Leopold

and Eric Tobias

IT for Innovative Services, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology,

5, Av. des Hauts-Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Environmental Research & Innovation, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology,

5, Av. des Hauts-Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

{valerie.maquil, luis.desousa, ulrich.leopold, eric.tobias}@list.lu

Keywords:

Geographical Information Systems, Human Computer Interaction, Geospatial Tangible User Interfaces,

Interactive Tabletops, Collaborative Urban Planning, Participatory Urban Planning.

Abstract:

The complexity of urban projects today requires new approaches to integrate stakeholders with different pro-

fessional backgrounds. Traditional tools used in urban planning are designed for experts and offer little op-

portunity for participation and collaborative design. This paper introduces the concept of Geospatial Tangible

User Interfaces (GTUI), and reports on the design and implementation of such a GTUI to support stakeholder

participation in collaborative urban planning. The proposed system uses physical objects to interact with large

digital maps and geospatial data projected onto a tabletop. It is implemented using a PostGIS database, a web

map server, the computer vision framework reacTIVision, a Java based TUIO client, and GeoTools. Based

on a series of comments collected during an evaluation workshop with stakeholders in the ﬁelds of urban and

energy planning, we discuss how maps projected on a table and physical objects can be an new approach to

participatory bottom-up urban planning.

1 INTRODUCTION

Urban planning today provides a complex set of re-

quirements to satisfy technical, political, economic,

and social constraints. The designed artefacts need

to respond to innovative strategies provided by cities,

address social and demographic evolutions, and deal

with the numerous constraints of sustainable devel-

opment (Terrin, 2009). To increase citizen satisfac-

tion, create realistic expectations, and produce better

designs by accessing local knowledge and skills, new

approaches have been developed to involve stakehold-

ers in project planning phases (Al-kodmany, 2001;

Loorbach, 2012).

Traditional urban planning processes are still

dominating in practice. They are designed by

and for experts, relying mostly on top-down ap-

proaches (Loorbach, 2012). A master plan is created

by urban planners and other domain experts where

speciﬁc topics are individually optimised, such as

transportation, recreational and green spaces, or air

quality. The tools employed offer little possibility

for stakeholder participation and collaboration. How-

ever, the design of urban space calls for bottom-up ap-

proaches where stakeholders and citizens collaborate

to build a vision. This vision is then realised through

backcasting (Loorbach, 2012).

In this paper, we introduce the concept of Geospa-

tial Tangible User Interfaces (GTUI) and study the

feasibility of such a system to support stakeholder

participation in collaborative urban planning. The

proposed system embeds 1) interactive maps, 2) a ta-

ble, and 3) physical objects to support the different

needs in collaborative urban planning (see Figures 1

and 2).

As part of this work, we have developed a proof of

concept that GTUIs can be useful for participatory ur-

ban planning and facilitate bottom up approaches. We

seek to develop a ﬁrst understanding on the character-

istics of a GTUI that is useful for such scenarios. We

describe a series of geospatial interactions that have

been designed and implemented in an iterative, user-

centred approach. Finally we present the results of a

questionnaire that has been distributed to urban and

energy planning experts of 5 European cities.

113

Maquil V., De Sousa L., Leopold U. and Tobias E..

A Geospatial Tangible User Interface to Support Stakeholder Participation in Urban Planning.

DOI: 10.5220/0005370801130120

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM-2015), pages

113-120

ISBN: 978-989-758-099-4

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

Figure 1: The geospatial tangible table.

Figure 2: The different layers represented by wooden ob-

jects.

2 RELATED WORK

2.1 Collaborative GIS Tools

To date, few GIS tools have been conceived or ex-

tended to give stakeholders the ability to provide di-

rect input to urban planning projects. More often, the

focus is on stakeholder feedback and access to data,

and less on collaboration and interaction (Kingston

et al., 2000; Rinner et al., 2008).

Virtual Slaithewaite (Kingston et al., 2000) was

one of the ﬁrst online applications for participatory

urban planning, allowing users to add comments to

spatial features. Other applications have followed,

e.g., the Argumentation Map prototype (Rinner et al.,

2008) that provides a discussion forum wherein com-

ments can be geo-referenced. (Bugs et al., 2010) in-

vestigated ways of engaging the general public in de-

cision making using Web 2.0 technologies and a sam-

ple of volunteer users. The Collaborative Spatial Del-

phi project (Balram et al., 2003) investigated these

matters from a methodological perspective. The goal

was to facilitate consensus solutions on environmen-

tal planning and management issues by deriving de-

cisions from a process of open debate. This method

considers the participation process well beyond plan-

ning and decision making by also covering monitor-

ing and management.

The approaches reviewed here focus on remotely

connecting stakeholders to a central participatory sys-

tem. While they provide varying levels of discussion,

stakeholder-to-stakeholder interaction is a minor con-

cern.

2.2 Tangible User Interfaces

Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) extend the traditional

desktop computing interfaces with a physical dimen-

sion, allowing users to physically interact with digi-

tal information (Ishii, 1997). To capitalise on natural

interaction paradigms, TUIs make use of metaphors:

drawing upon familiar concepts to entice users to in-

teract with the digital world in a way that they would

interact with the physical world.

Applications available via tangible devices have

an inherent spatiality, allowing users to abstract prob-

lems of the urban planning domain and to gain insight

by beneﬁting from natural mapping (Djajadiningrat

et al., 2004). Furthermore, TUIs support both prag-

matic and epistemic action (Klemmer et al., 2006) as

they allow stakeholders in an urban planning setting

to both understand problems and propose solutions.

So far a variety of geospatial TUI research sce-

narios have been implemented (e.g. landscape mod-

elling (Mitasova et al., 2006)), but only few combine

maps and tangible interaction to support participation

in urban planning. (Arias et al., 2000) describe the

Envisionment and Discovery Collaboratory, a table-

top application where participants work with com-

puter simulations and physical tokens to anticipate

and discuss consequences of modifying stops of a bus

route. The MIT Media Lab developed the Illuminat-

ing Clay (Piper and Ratti, 2002), where users may al-

ter the topography of a clay model in order to design

and analyse landscapes. The results of a modiﬁcation

are constantly projected back into the workspace. A

more recent example of a participatory tangible tool

for urban planning is the ColorTable (Maquil et al.,

2008). Stakeholders can discuss their vision of a site,

subject to urban development, by co-creating mixed

reality views with visual material, thus composing a

scene. These scenes are created by assigning images

to wooden blocks and placing them onto a tabletop

map. The mixed reality view is then shown on a sep-

arate screen.

In contrast to desktop approaches, a TUI provides

not only a participatory platform, but also a vector for

stakeholder inter-discussion, bringing them together

around a physical discussion place, and thus potenti-

ating the development of plural understandings.

GISTAM2015-1stInternationalConferenceonGeographicalInformationSystemsTheory,ApplicationsandManagement

114

3 THE MUSIC APPROACH

The MUSIC project, which stands for “Mitigation in

Urban areas: Solutions for Innovative Cities” aims

at developing new innovative strategies to achieve a

50% reduction in CO

emission by 2030 in the part-

ner cities: Aberdeen, Montreuil, Gent, Ludwigsburg,

and Rotterdam. The partner cities address essential

methodological questions on the process of emissions

reduction: How can policy be translated into concrete

and innovative projects? How can all stakeholders

formulate one vision for a sustainable city? What role

should companies, research institutes, and the govern-

ment play? How can urban citizens be involved?

To tackle these questions, the partner cities are

taking a novel approach to citizen participation us-

ing Transition Management (Roorda and Wittmayer,

2014). This method starts with gathering so called

front runners in Transition Arenas. Front runners are

actors (e.g., citizens, entrepreneurs, urban planners,

energy experts) in their city who have ideas for en-

gagement to improve the quality of life within the city.

Transition Arenas start with gathering (geospatial) in-

formation about the city regarding the state of, for

example, infrastructure, green areas, renewable en-

ergy potentials, logistics infrastructure, and distance

to schools in order to establish the system’s as-is state.

Once this process has ﬁnished and the information

is available, the next phase caters to the creation of

visions. These visions are possible futures created

by engaged front runners. Once these futures have

been created a backcasting method is used to deter-

mine milestones that need to be realised to achieve a

speciﬁc future (Loorbach, 2012). Recent work (Ro-

orda and Wittmayer, 2014) realised in the MUSIC

project has made it clear that in order to realise back-

casting, for example by using transition management

processes, there is a need for more complex and inte-

grated information about the target city. This problem

is addressed by using GIS based tools.

In order to facilitate the usage of geospatial data

and processing services in this context, the inte-

grated Geospatial Urban DEcision Support System

(iGUESS) (De Sousa et al., 2012) was developed.

The system is able to receive data from a multitude

of sources and process them to make the processed

data available in a geospatial dimension. iGUESS

presents data in a structured and aggregated way. Ex-

pert users can further process geospatial data with in-

tegrated modelling and analysis tools to, e.g., assess

renewable potentials within the city.

4 THE GTUI CONCEPT

To enhance the collaborative understanding of avail-

able data related to urban planning projects, we com-

bine the opportunities of GIS and TUIs. To achieve

this goal, we leverage three notions:

The use of maps as learning, exploration, and

analysis tools is a common approach in urban plan-

ning. Encoding location within a multitude of every-

day interactions, objects, and events allows to create

a new perspective and, hence, to unlock solutions to

various complex problems (Longley et al., 2010, p. 4).

A table is typically a place where people meet

to discuss and exchange ideas. It supports a circular

conﬁguration of participants, each of them playing an

equal part in the discussion. The tabletop becomes a

shared space enabling social interaction, such as shift-

ing the focus of a conversation or organising group

members into subgroups (Fernaeus and Tholander,

2006).

Finally, the physical objects provide a simple and

familiar access to the maps. They provide users with a

feeling of intuitive directness, invite participation, and

support collaboration (Schneider et al., 2011; Horn

et al., 2009). In addition they support ofﬂine interac-

tions, such as pointing, tapping, holding, or sorting,

which are typical activities to aid cognition (Esteves

et al., 2013).

The combination of these three notions allows us

to deﬁne the concept of GTUI: a user interface pro-

jecting digital maps onto a tabletop and allowing mul-

tiple users to explore and analyse them using physical

manipulations with objects.

5 A GTUI FOR THE MUSIC

PROJECT

The speciﬁc GTUI instantiation used for MUSIC fea-

tures a rounded tabletop sized 150x105cm, with an

interactive surface of 120x75cm, see Figure 1. The

wooden objects are shaped as circles, squares, rect-

angles, and triangles with a size varying between 4

and 7cm, see Figure 2. They are tagged with optical

markers that are detected by a camera mounted on the

bottom of the table. The digital maps, combined with

other types of feedback, are projected onto the table-

top from underneath.

The GTUI instance of the MUSIC project was

developed in an iterative approach using user in-

put. Within these iterations, the presentation, ob-

jects, maps, and cartographic interactions have been

iteratively designed and implemented using the rapid

AGeospatialTangibleUserInterfacetoSupportStakeholderParticipationinUrbanPlanning

115

Figure 3: Cartographic interactions implemented on the TUI.

prototyping and feedback phases from multiple stake-

holders.

While our ﬁrst GTUI only contained the very ba-

sic cartographic interactions (panning, zooming, and

adding layers), it was progressively reﬁned with a se-

ries of developments. On the one hand, these con-

cern the ﬂuidity of manipulations that we improved

by reﬁning and tweaking the interactions to run more

smoothly, and by reducing map loading times using

multi-threading. On the other hand, object cluttering

was addressed by mapping mutually exclusive lay-

ers onto a same objects which can then be rotated to

activate different layers. Other improvements were

related to the map size, which was increased by re-

moving a vertical stripe reserved for object placement

as well as to the introduction of new interactions to

enable more advanced interactions, such as querying

layers for information, splitting two layers, and mag-

nifying parts of the map.

In the current version, the system supports a ﬁrst

series of basic cartographic interactions, as well as

several more advanced interactions (see Figure 3):

Pan. A circular object can be placed on the map.

By dragging it across the table, the view on the map

is moved in the same direction.

Zoom. The same circular object can be rotated to

the right to zoom in, and rotated to the left to zoom

out.

Activate Layers. A set of square objects is pro-

vided with each object representing a different geo-

graphical data layer. To activate the layer, the object

is placed anywhere on the map. The legend is then vi-

sualized in a box displayed on the right of the placed

object. When the object is removed from the table,

the layer is deactivated and the legend fades out.

Prioritise Layers. The vertical position of each

layer object determines the order in which informa-

tion layers are drawn. The bottom most layer is drawn

ﬁrst, hence forms the background of the map. The

topmost layer is drawn last, hence occludes any lay-

ers underneath. As layers are transparent where they

do not provide information, this setup is well suited

to stack many different data layers.

Data Information. A triangular object shows a

black dot at its peak. This dot can be placed on any

graphical element. A window with the textual de-

scription on the graphical element is then opened next

to the object. When removing or displacing the ob-

ject, the window closes.

Magnifying Lens. In a similar fashion as the data

information, a triangular object allows to move a

black dot on a speciﬁc position. This object opens

a round windows which shows the area where the ob-

ject was placed in a higher zoom level.

Split Screen. A rectangular object allows to cre-

ate two zones on the map separated by a line deﬁned

through the position and orientation of the rectangu-

lar object. Each zone is assigned to a different layer

by placing the layer’s corresponding object in a dedi-

cated rectangular areas. This allows for the compari-

son of layers that would otherwise be conﬂicting due

to their coverage or overlap.

Select Areas. Paper cards hold speciﬁc city areas

with varying granularity. Users can load the map of

these areas by placing the corresponding cards onto

the tabletop.

With these interactions, users can explore a se-

ries of layers pertinent to sustainable urban planning.

Layers created by the MUSIC project for this GTUI

instance included: Renewable energy potentials, such

as solar, geothermal as well as energy savings poten-

tials; Socio-economic and health impact layers, such

as energy poverty and urban heat island effects. The

energy poverty layer shows access to affordable en-

ergy. The urban heat island layer visualizes heating

and cooling of urban buildings. All layers provide

detailed information at the building and neighbour-

hood levels within the city which enables stakeholders

to interact with accurate information using the GTUI

tabletop.

GISTAM2015-1stInternationalConferenceonGeographicalInformationSystemsTheory,ApplicationsandManagement

116

reacTIVision

TUIO Client

GeoTools

TUIO

Tangible

User

Interface

WMS

WFS

WCS

WPS

Simulation Server

MapServer

PostGIS

Figure 4: The software architecture supporting participatory urban planning. The MUSIC GTUI infrastructure backed by the

Tangible GIS software (left) accesses services provided by the iGUESS infrastructure (right) such as mapping, simulation,

and geospatial data.

6 SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE

The GTUI instance described in this paper is based

on a server-client architecture as shown in Figure 4.

The table interface acts as a client that, in response to

user input, fetches data from a remote server through

an HTTP connection. Interaction between client and

server relies on the web services speciﬁed by the

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC).

Spatial datasets from the MUSIC project are

stored in a database managed by PostgreSQL

with the geospatial extension PostGIS

. Using the

MapServer

software package, these geospatial data

are exposed through several OGC services, namely:

Web Mapping Service (WMS), Web Feature Service

(WFS) and Web Coverage Service (WCS). To gener-

ate new data sets via simulations, e.g. solar potential

maps, PyWPS

is used to expose these simulations

as web processing services (WPS). Apache, a HTTP

server, manages incoming requests to all the above

services.

On the client side, the tangible table is deployed

with the LIST’s Tangible GIS Java application. It

relies on the reacTIVision

computer vision frame-

work to capture and identify objects on the table. The

objects are identiﬁed and their states, such as mo-

http://www.postgresql.org

http://www.postgis.net

http://www.mapserver.org

http://pywps.wald.intevation.org

https://www.reactivision.sourceforge.net

tion or rotation, are encoded using the TUIO proto-

col (Kaltenbrunner et al., 2005). Tangible GIS in-

cludes a TUIO Java client to receive these state de-

scriptions. After interpreting these states, the ap-

plication reacts by issuing requests to the OGC ser-

vices. Tangible GIS makes use of the GeoTools

li-

brary. GeoTools exposes facilities to easily compose

requests to and interpret responses from the various

OGC services. After receiving the data or meta-data

from the respective OGC services, the Tangible GIS

displays the results on the table.

With this architecture the GTUI can be indepen-

dent of the data services used in the participatory pro-

cess. It is extensible and interchangeable with any

other spatial data services that comply with the OGC

standards. Therefore, the TUI scenario implemented

here can be seamlessly applied to different contexts

and domains.

7 EVALUATION

Within the scope of the MUSIC project we performed

2 workshops in Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg in

November 2013 and Ludwigsburg October 2014. The

workshops were targeting stakeholders interested in

new participatory urban planning approaches in their

city and aimed at informing participants about the

new solutions developed in the MUSIC project. In the

Luxembourg workshop 20 stakeholders attended from

http://www.geotools.org

AGeospatialTangibleUserInterfacetoSupportStakeholderParticipationinUrbanPlanning

117

6 different cities where new participation approaches

using Transition Management and iGUESS were dis-

cussed. Stakeholders had various backgrounds in-

cluding urban planners, GIS technicians, social scien-

tists, engineers, energy experts, and companies pro-

viding energy related services. All of them have al-

ready participated in or even organised bottom up par-

ticipatory urban planning workshops. The GTUI was

presented to them as a new type of interface and tool

to explore opportunities for renewable energy sources

in their cities.

To obtain insights on the potential advantages and

disadvantages of such a tool, an anonymous question-

naire was distributed to each participant. It asked

participants to imagine a participatory workshop with

stakeholders aiming for sustainable urban planning

in their city, and the use of the tangible table within

the scope of that workshop. The questionnaire holds

six statements about potential differences in the group

dynamics and work practices:

1. Stakeholders will communicate differently.

2. Stakeholders will participate more actively.

3. It will be easier to understand the maps and layers.

4. Stakeholders will discuss longer before reaching

a consensus.

5. Stakeholders will collaborate more.

Each of these statements could be judged using a

ﬁve point rating scale (i.e., 1 corresponds to strongly

disagree,..., 5 corresponds to strongly agree; range

[1, 5]), with the possibility to leave a comment in an

additional space. Further, three open questions were

asked about the major advantage, the major disadvan-

tage, as well as envisioned next features.

1. What, in your opinion is the major advantage of

the tool?

2. What is the major disadvantage?

3. Which features would you like the next version to

support?

14 participants ﬁlled in the questionnaire and pro-

vided a total of 113 comments. Using the approach

of thematic analysis, the comments were studied and

grouped to identify relevant themes describing char-

acteristics of the tool.

All participants agreed about their feeling that

stakeholders will communicate differently (M = 4.50,

SD = 0.52), will participate more actively (M = 4.36,

SD = 0.75) and will collaborate more (M = 4.07, SD

= 0.62). Further, participants agreed that stakeholders

will better understand the maps (M = 4.29, SD = 0.73)

and be more satisﬁed with the outcome (M = 4.18, SD

= 0.54).

Regarding the time it requires to reach a consen-

sus, participants had differing views or did not know

(M = 3.07, SD = 0.92). P3 and P14, for instance, ex-

pect stakeholders to discuss longer, but P3 sees this

positively as the stakeholders will get more informa-

tion. P4 and P5, on the other hand, rather think that

the discussion process will get shorter and that a so-

lution will be found faster. P1, P2, P9, P10, P11, P12,

and P13 speciﬁcally mention that they do not know

and that several options are possible.

Our analysis of the qualitative data has revealed

ﬁve themes that participants consider as particularly

interesting. The GTUI uses maps to display data and

information. Participants consider this as an impor-

tant visual aid, providing a new type of overview

(P2), which is more understandable. They expect that

this will create increased satisfaction as “[...] the out-

come will be based on the facts of the map.” How-

ever, they also mention that maps can be difﬁcult to

understand in case they represent very technical data

(P12,13).

A second aspect mentioned by participants is the

high interactivity of the GTUI, “[making it] easier

to understand the underlying links between data [...]”

and allowing stakeholders to express themselves in a

clear way (P11). This is assumed to generate more

discussions (P5). P11, however, also mentions the

need of having a sufﬁcient number of layers in or-

der to be able to see the discussed issue “[...] from

different perspectives [...]”.

Multiple participants mention that they expect

stakeholders to be more active while using the table.

On one hand they explain this by the circumstance

that users will be standing (P5,9,13) instead of sit-

ting. P13 even goes further, explaining that the stand-

ing conﬁguration will create a more informal situation

(P13). On the other hand, participants are referring to

the fact that GTUIs are based on physical manipula-

tions and, hence, require a more active disposition to

be operated. P5: “You have to be more active anyway,

working with the map/table to see the different layers,

zooming in [...]”

Another theme deals with the support for playful

interactions. Participants describe it as a “motivative

tool” (P10), being easy to use (P6,8,12,14), and re-

moving “fear of technology” (P6). They explain this

by the playful nature of the tangible table: “The table

looks like a game with all the layer pieces [...]” (P11).

A ﬁnal series of comments deals with the in-

creased collaboration around the table, supported by

a common, shared space. This space allows every-

body to participate, try out options, and inﬂuence the

data (P1,3,4,5,6,12,14). More speciﬁcally they as-

sume the particular form of the table to be beneﬁcial

GISTAM2015-1stInternationalConferenceonGeographicalInformationSystemsTheory,ApplicationsandManagement

118

as it allows to form a circle and to collaborate face-to-

face (P11,14). Participants expect this to “encourage

communication” (P6), and “create a dialogue instead

of presentation” (P14).

Concerns expressed by the participants deal with

the size of the table that can only hold a few peo-

ple (P1,P8), the risk of being seen as a toy (P2) as

well as the lack of features compared to GUI tools

(P4,11). They also mention cartographic issues of

the presented maps: “The maps are very complex and

some citizen will have problems to understand every-

thing” (P13). P12 points out that the maps need to

be “[...] relevant, well-scaled, with instinctive colour

map [...]”. Practical issues are mentioned, like the

room to store it, as well as the costs (P5). Finally,

the participants mention the importance of properly

introducing the tool in order to avoid that it is seen as

a toy (P2), and that the discussion is well framed (P7).

These results allow us to derive an initial set of

design guidelines for GTUIs to support participation:

• Ensure high interactivity and real-time feedback

to attract participants, increase engagement, and

discussion.

• Use a table in standing height to encourage users

in being more active in the discussions.

• Use playful, simple interactions with physical ob-

jects to remove fear of technology and enhance

participation.

• Use different layers to show phenomena from dif-

ferent perspectives.

• Make sure to deﬁne a protocol how the table is

introduced and used in the workshop.

8 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have shown that the combination

of tangible tabletops and GIS to support collabora-

tive understanding of complex data for sustainable

urban planning is feasible. Preliminary results from

two workshops within the MUSIC project support the

assumption that such systems change the way stake-

holders, involved in urban planning processes, com-

municate and improve participation as well as collab-

oration and the understanding of geospatial mapped

information.

Our qualitative analysis has allowed to identify a

series of design characteristics appearing to be ben-

eﬁcial in the use of participatory urban planning, in

particular the interactivity, the visual representation of

the data, the standing height of the table, the playful

nature, and the shared space. Based on these results,

we have provided a series of initial guidelines to be

considered when designing GTUIs.

A limitation of the study is that results are based

on a series of small workshops using the GTUI and

the experience and judgement of these participants. It

would be interesting to conduct a larger ﬁeld trial with

more participants and more use cases to conﬁrm these

results. Nonetheless, this work provides directions on

how to set up and use such an interface in similar sce-

narios.

The GTUI concept provides many new opportuni-

ties and is currently used in urban logistics projects to

explore logistics information and determine optimal

placement of Urban Distribution Centres for freight

delivery.

Further improvements of the system will be nec-

essary to enable users to generate and input new in-

formation on the ﬂy using web standards such as the

web processing service (WPS) currently supported by

iGUESS. This will enable the user to, for example,

run different scenarios on the usage of renewable en-

ergy potentials or on city conﬁgurations and their im-

pact on the urban heat island effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been funded by the Luxembourg Insti-

tute of Science and Technology and the EU INTER-

REG IVB NWE Programme, Project 165F, the MU-

SIC Project.

REFERENCES

Al-kodmany, K. (2001). Visualization Tools and Methods

for Participatory Planning and Design. 8(2):1–37.

Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., and Scharff, E.

(2000). Transcending the individual human mindcre-

ating shared understanding through collaborative de-

sign. In Proc. of TOCHI, 7(1):84–113.

Balram, S., Dragicevic, S., and Meredith, T. (2003).

Achieving effectiveness in stakeholder participa-

tion using the gis-based collaborative spatial delphi

methodology. Journal of Environmental Assessment

Policy & Management, 5(3):365.

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.

De Sousa, L., Eykamp, C., Leopold, U., Baume, O., and

Braun, C. (2012). iGUESS - A web based system inte-

grating Urban Energy Planning and Assessment Mod-

elling for multi-scale spatial decision making. In Proc.

of iEMSs, page 8.

AGeospatialTangibleUserInterfacetoSupportStakeholderParticipationinUrbanPlanning

119

Djajadiningrat, T., Wensveen, S., Frens, J., and Overbeeke,

K. (2004). Tangible products: redressing the balance

between appearance and action. Personal and Ubiq-

uitous Computing, 8(5):294–309.

Esteves, A., Scott, M., and Oakley, I. (2013). Supporting

ofﬂine activities on interactive surfaces. In Proc. of

TEI ’13, pages 147–154. ACM.

Fernaeus, Y. and Tholander, J. (2006). looking at the com-

puter but doing it on land: Childrens interactions in

a tangible programming space. In People and Com-

puters XIX The Bigger Picture, pages 3–18. Springer

London.

Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., Crouser, R. J., and Jacob, R. J.

(2009). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical

programming languages for informal science educa-

tion. In Proc. of CHI ’09, pages 975–984. ACM.

Ishii, H. (1997). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces

between people, bits and atoms. In Proc. of CHI ’97,

pages 234–241. ACM.

Kaltenbrunner, M., Bovermann, T., Bencina, R., and

Costanza, E. (2005). TUIO: A Protocol for Table-

Top Tangible User Interfaces. In Proc. of the 6th Int’l

Workshop on Gesture in Human-Computer Interac-

tion and Simulation.

Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., and Turton, I. (2000).

Web-based public participation geographical informa-

tion systems: an aid to local environmental decision-

making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,

24(2):109 – 125.

Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., and Takayama, L. (2006).

How bodies matter: ﬁve themes for interaction design.

In Proc. of DIS, pages 140–149. ACM.

Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D. J., and Rhind,

D. W. (2010). Geographic Information Systems and

Science. Wiley Publishing, 3rd ed. edition.

Loorbach, D. (2012). Transition management for sustain-

able development: A prescriptive, complexity-based

governance framework. Governance, 23(1):161–183.

Maquil, V., Psik, T., and Wagner, I. (2008). The colortable:

a design story. In Proc. of TEI ’08, pages 97–104.

ACM.

Mitasova, H., Mitas, L., Ratti, C., Ishii, H., Alonso, J., and

Harmon, R. S. (2006). Real-time landscape model

interaction using a tangible geospatial modeling en-

vironment. Computer Graphics and Applications,

IEEE, 26(4):55–63.

Piper, B. and Ratti, C. (2002). Illuminating clay: a 3-D tan-

gible interface for landscape analysis. In Proceedings

of CHI ’02. ACM.

Rinner, C., Keler, C., and Andrulis, S. (2008). The use

of web 2.0 concepts to support deliberation in spatial

decision-making. Computers, Environment and Ur-

ban Systems, 32(5):386 – 395.

Roorda, C. and Wittmayer, J. (2014). Transition manage-

ment in ﬁve European cities – an evaluation. Tech-

nical report, Dutch Research Institute for Transitions,

Rotterdam, http://j.mp/1xrggtI.

Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., and Dillenbourg, P.

(2011). Beneﬁts of a tangible interface for collabora-

tive learning and interaction. Learning Technologies,

IEEE Transactions on, 4(3):222–232.

Terrin, J.-J. (2009). Conception collaborative pour innover

en architecture: processus, m

ethodes, outils.

GISTAM2015-1stInternationalConferenceonGeographicalInformationSystemsTheory,ApplicationsandManagement

120