1. Introduction
Public participation is an important tool in urban design as it tackles many of the architectural, social and economic problems. There is no doubt that sustainable development cannot be achieved without the involvement of the concerned parties. Citizens are the main element that knows the reality and the problems that surround them more than any other person. However, the gap between decision-makers and citizens as well as the absence of a policy of stimulation and encouragement more effectively, led to a reduction in the efficiency of the process of integration of citizens in decision-making [1], [2], Currently, public participation depends on the presentation and discussion -in the early stages- of design proposals on 2D drawings and some 3D physical models, where participants find it difficult to link the proposals to the real world after implementation. Traditional methods of participation received some criticism on the basis that their ability to engage with the public and the encouragement of exchange of ideas were limited, which reduced the effectiveness of those tools and the difficulty in evaluating decisions taken.
Virtual reality can be seen as a technological development that increases the extent of interactivity, where there are some participations using virtual reality, but they are still limited in their ability to provide interactive factors in decision-making. With the availability of computers with high specifications and prices more reasonable than ever before and the availability of the Internet, they can all be exploited, so the study uses the tools of virtual reality to complete the process of participation over the Internet.
Vizard is used as a virtual reality tool that can allow participants to make decisions supported by simulation and interaction so that decision-making can be reached in an advanced state of design and more informed decisions can be made in early stage design and planning and can also be sent to participants via the Internet.
This research aims to test if virtual reality can be used successfully over the internet to fulfil public participation in urban design in inaccessible areas. This will be investigated by using a survey method. A statistical specimen was chosen; the proposed model was sent to them to be evaluated, and to get their digital feedback in order to define the extent of applicability of the proposed tool for public participation.
This paper first reviews other works that make use of virtual reality in the realm of urban design and public participation, highlighting the importance of the research. Thereafter, it portrays the survey part that discusses the model and tool used and reviews and analyses the users’ feedback.
2. Related works
One of the key aspects of electronic sharing tools is to link the tools available to participants and users who wish to participate through the network. The following are some relevant experiments that have been arranged chronologically from latest to earliest.
In 2013, Jon Brouched created a model for Dubuque city and he named it as Virtual Dubuque. This model is one of the contextual aspects of the study: engaging the public through interactive virtual reality by walking around the city and discovering its features, but this experience still did not support exchange of opinion [3].
In 2013, some organizations in Boston City experimented with a participatory experiment called Participartary Chinatown where physical trading and virtual interaction were integrated through the Internet to encourage people to participate in a community meeting during a live meeting to develop the planning process or look for a home. But this experience requires prior knowledge of the use of the computer and need some time because the participant needs to pass several stages to be able to complete the process of participation [4], [5], [6] .
In 2010, Maryland taxpayers implemented the Maryland Budget Game, an online public participation game where the user plays the role of governor of the city and begins distributing the annual budget on some key services to fill the budget deficit. But he is not allowed to freely choose the distribution of the budget [7], [8], [9].
In 2009, the government in Canela, Brazil and the University of Jume, organized a workshop to develop a vehicle for public participation in urban planning, where PPGIS was reached, a means of linking public participation and GIS communication through the Internet. Where participants can report a complaint or add responses to a complaint in advance or ask some questions to participants and in addition they can enter some pictures and videos of the topics proposed with the comment and can locate the problem on the map, What distinguishes this tool is that it introduced the geographic reference into the discussions but was unable to organize the comments made by the participants [10].
Despite these efforts, these tools are still not interactive enough, because they do not allow citizens to choose freely and do not support the exchange of opinion, in which the participant is the recipient of the proposals, and it is expected that more citizens will be involved in the decision-making process in urban design through the use of modern technologies such as interactive virtual reality which is still missing in most applications up to this time.
3. The importance of public participation in urban design
Public participation is an essential element in the process of community development in order to create new patterns of activities, innovation, change and re-coordination to improve the conditions of society and reorient existing institutions and bodies [11]. The gap between the official and the user can be bridged by the official understanding of the behavior and culture of the users [12]. Moreover, involving users in the stages of building the project, should not leave them alone in decision-making. On the other hand, leaving decision-making to officials alone, will have many consequences and therefore a partnership between them is a must [13].
Public participation is important in our modern life because it focuses on many values [14] and cannot be ignored in urban design processes. It is used to discover environmental, architectural and economic solutions to the surrounding environment in order to provide comfort to development partners. Searching for suitable criteria for public participation and proposed projects to meet public needs according to priority is a must [15].
Public participation works to train development partners to cope with their problems and cooperate in solving them through different ways to participate directly and indirectly, using traditional and non-traditional methods [16]. Participation is to increase the intellectual and cultural awareness of development partners and this helps to reduce gaps and social differences [17].
4. Case study: urban participation in urban design in Beit Hanoun
Entities in Beit Hanoun are encouraged to participate in the community but this is done using traditional participation tools such as meetings, conferences and interviews.
This situation necessitates the provision of a tool that can involve all parties concerned and avoid the consequences that hinder the process of participation, taking into account the use of virtual reality tools and the Internet to carry out the participatory process. The aim of the proposed tool is to enable users to carry out the process of public participation easily without time or place to complete the process of participation, based on the virtual reality and the Internet, where the virtual reality can offer interactive proposals integrated to discuss certain problems in a particular place, It is common for citizens to use the virtual reality to see suggestions or as a recreational tool and use the Internet to get some information or social communication. What is needed the use the virtual reality by participants to identify proposals, evaluate alternatives and assemble a new alternative, in order to balance the interaction and perception of proposals to create an easy-to-use tool by the largest number of community groups and provide data to be well understood.
4.1. Description of the proposed system
Fig. 1 shows the main screen of the Vizard program, which is the virtual reality software used to build a three-dimensional model that promotes public participation using different interactive decision-making methods, allowing citizens to integrate by exploring the site and identifying proposals in a way that is close to reality. It can give participants the freedom to choose what they want to meet their needs.
Fig. 1. The main page for virtual reality tools proposed (Vizard).When participants participate in the experiment, they can move freely between the proposals used by sending a form of electronic questionnaire to them. Participants will express their opinion on the tool used and choose the appropriate alternatives by answering the suggested questions. This results in a set of data that generates content. This data can be resorted to when making a decision, and in this way it will enhance the exchange of opinion between decision makers and citizens and increase the efficiency of the process of participation.
4.2. Methodology
To assess the process of public participation using virtual reality tools, it was tested in Beit Hanoun - Gaza - Palestine in January 2017 by sending it to a small sample of participants. With the aim of the research study as an initial case. It was sent to 30 citizens and decision-makers in the city, whether they reside within or outside the city. 25 individuals responded. The participation process went as follows:
4.2.1. Viewing proposals through virtual reality
Participants download interactive virtual reality files through an electronic link that was shared with them to facilitate the decision-making process. They include a three-dimensional model that shows them the proposals and allows them to freely choose between alternatives. They are two models that contain two ways to view:
The first has limited interactivity, in which the participant is restricted to choose the alternatives in a collective state as shown in Fig. 2 and the second is highly interactive, in which the participant has the freedom to choose the alternatives in an individual situation, as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 2. The second view of virtual reality (highly interactive).
Fig. 3. First view of virtual reality (limited interactive).4.2.2. Electronic questionnaire
The questionnaire is used to obtain feedback from participants by answering a set of questions. It is divided into four parts:
-
Introduction: Contains some instructions that answer the participant following the completion of the participation process.
-
Part 1: It is about identifying the participant's information, to ensure the seriousness of participation.
-
Part 2: relates to the effectiveness of the tools currently available in the city.
-
Part 3: Assesses the effectiveness of virtual reality tools as a tool for public participation.
4.3. Evaluation criteria
In order for the experiment to integrate the participants correctly by using the Vizard program, all commands and virtual shapes must be available in the same scene when the user is experiencing the proposal in virtual reality. In order to ensure the importance of this tool in the process of public participation, evaluation must be carried out through the following points:
4.3.1. Ease of use
Means the participants' ability to deal with the proposed tool for the participatory process, and is measured by knowing the user's access to the proposals and completing the participatory process [18]. This was done through a direct question to the participants.
4.3.2. Cost of entry
It is the cost that participants are required to complete the process of participation either in providing tools for the operation or the cost of access to the proposed model, [19] and this will be measured by a direct question to the participants.
4.3.3. Target users
They are the users who have been invited to conduct the public participation process and the users who have completed the participation process and will be measured by knowing the number of users and their age groups, educational level and career [20].
4.3.4. Efficiency of the tool
And the ability of the tool to perform its function and achieve its objectives, and measuring the efficiency of the tool by measuring the ability to attract citizens and their absorption of the number of participants and also the period of time to complete participation in addition to measuring the ability of the response of the tool to the efficiency of computers participants [19].
4.3.5. Interactive
The extent of interaction provided by the tool to allow participants to freely choose from the proposals alternatives, and this is measured by feedbacks to users to respond to the model [21].
4.3.6. Ease of communication
How participants get to the tool and proposal. Participation process is measured by a direct question to participants to see how easy it is to access the model.
4.3.7. Satisfaction
Is the extent to which participants agree to use the proposed tool to conduct the participatory process, and this will be measured by knowing the willingness and support of the participants to use this proposed tool and model [19].
4.4. Results of the study
Some of the projects proposed by the Municipality of Beit Hanoun for the development of the city have been used in the construction of the proposals, with the aim of the study being characterized by a kind of seriousness when making the decision. As a result, specific questions were used to discuss each criterion and some criteria were asked for more than one question to measure, so we should understand the results as a whole by discussing the following criteria.
4.4.1. Ease of use
This was done through a direct question, where the ease of use was found in the first view (limited interactive) by 84% average and above and in the second view (highly interactive) 100% medium and above. In other words, in the first display, 4 individuals had limited ease of use, 15 medium and 6 high, and in the second mode 18 medium and 7 high interactive. And this shows that the tool has achieved a good level of completion of the scientific participation, but in the high-interactive view was better and easy to use, Fig. 4 shows the results of ease of use.
Fig. 4. Ease of use for virtual reality views.4.4.2. Cost
The model was implemented using open source software and components and then a three-dimensional model was extracted through the lab equipment of the Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. And in which the programs are paid in advance, so the cost of implementing the form and processing it for the process of participation is virtually nonexistent. As for the measurement of the cost of the instrument used from the point of view of the participants, the cost ranged between 48% average and 40% limited and 12% as shown in Fig. 5. This indicates that the cost was somewhat acceptable by the participants.
Fig. 5. Cost of using virtual reality tools.4.4.3. Target users
The study targeted 30 individuals divided into 26 males and 4 females, but the number of individuals who completed the participation process was 25 individuals, 23 males and 2 females. The target age groups were divided into three phases (15–35, 36–59, 60 and above), while those who completed the process had an average age of 36.5 years, ranging from 15 to 59 years.
The absence of those over the age of 60 years was observed, as shown in Fig. 6, due to the fact that this group did not rely on the use of Internet. In addition, the educational level among the participants was 96% with a bachelor's degree or above and 4% in general. The percentage of persons residing inside the country was 80% and outside it was 20% as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 6. Age of participants were able to complete the participation process.
Fig. 7. Percentage of participants live inside and outside the city.4.4.4. Efficiency of the tool
The efficiency of the tool has been measured through several points:
-
–
Ability to attract citizens to participate:
Where 24% of the participants did not participate in advance and 65% participated once and 4% twice and 16% three times and more and this indicates that the tool attractive to citizens to carry out the process of participation.
-
–
Capacity to absorb the number of citizens:
The tool can accommodate the largest number of citizens, but the study included a limited number of users to measure the effectiveness of the proposed tool.
-
–
Time to complete the sharing process:
Varied by different views in the first view (limited to interactive), it varied by 48% from 10 to 29 min, 44% from 30 to 49 min, and 8% from 50 to 60 min. In the second mode (high interactive), it ranged from 52% of 10–29 min, 44% of 30–49 min and 4% of 50–60 min. This indicates that virtual reality tools do not take much time to make the decision-making process depending on whether the views are high or limited interactive.
-
–
The efficiency of the computer used by the participants:
The participants had little difficulty in running virtual reality proposals because they needed a computer with relatively high specifications, so they could see the proposals and make the decision-making process.
4.4.5. Interactive
The feedback was highly interactive, as they were able to easily participate and answer all the questionnaire questions. This was even more apparent when the participants tested the proposals through two presentation methods. Where in the first view (limited interactive) they chose the first proposal in the second view (high interactive), the proportions varied when given the freedom of choice as shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Choose your preferred proposal for high interactive.All this indicates that the interaction was higher in the second method and made the participants more serious and interactive in choosing the appropriate alternative and this method increases the efficiency of the decision making process.
4.4.6. Ease of communication
This has been done by sending an electronic link containing the questionnaire and a set of paragraphs that explain how to participate and how to download the files through the links available to users and how to answer questions. Participants encountered some obstacles during the process of downloading files. 6 people had problems due to file size, but were eventually downloaded after a long time. 19 people managed to download files easily as it all depends on the participants’ internet speed.
4.4.7. Satisfaction
Participants were asked about their willingness to accept this tool to help the participation process. Fig. 9 shows their results. In addition, when questioned about the extent of their support for the use of virtual reality tools through the proposed views was their support for the two methods display (yes). When asked how much they support the use of this tool by the responsible authorities in the decision-making process, all of them support the use by the responsible authorities and all of them want to carry out the process of participation through the tools of reality.
Fig. 9. The desire of participants to provide a tool to do participation process.This indicates the satisfaction of participants in using such an instrument to participate in this tool.