63 
Abstract 
The complexity of the contemporary city stems from the numerous positions of its interpretation. The two most 
relevant to this paper are the augmentations of cities through digital technology and the ever-more-present 
participation requirement in the urban planning process. On one hand, digital technologies are promising efficient 
running of cities and better decision-making through a larger volume and better detail of information. On the other 
hand, the participatory agenda suggests a more levelled playing field for different stakeholders and a wider 
consensus. Both positions have limits—the first in the myriad of data produced that makes the digital city 
unreadable to the public and decision-makers without the help of specialized professionals, and the second in 
forming and keeping a consensus between stakeholders in the planning process. This paper explores how these 
limits can be addressed. Recently, interactive tangible planning support systems (PSSs) have been promoted to 
improve the established urban planning and participation methodologies. They promise to make digital spatial 
data more accessible in the decision-making process and to establish a better consensus amongst stakeholders. 
This paper will compare two examples of the interactive tangible PSSs in order to illuminate how the interactive 
environments increase the usability of professional spatial information on one hand and how they contribute 
toward consensus-making on the other. 
Keywords: interactive tangible planning support systems, public participation, planning process, politics 
1 Introduction 
Contemporary cities are becoming ever more complex and increasingly difficult to manage. 
This is creating a multifaceted urban environment that is claimed by an ever-larger number of 
diverse stakeholders. Developers, multinational firms, entrepreneurs, investors, economic 
experts, the local public, engineers, architects, artists, etc.: all these different groups are 
claiming the right to define, organize and voice their opinions about what, how and in what 
way their cities should be shaped. Their claims are more often than not in stark contradiction; 
for example, the wishes and demands of the local public are usually diametrically opposed to 
the wishes and demands of the developers. 
Latour (2004) refers to this problem as “the matters of concern”, where every claim can be
contested and should be part of an open discussion in which all constituencies, human and non-
human, have a voice and an equal right of representation. In other words, reality in 
contemporary culture has different manifestations—from scientific, economic and technical 
descriptions of material processes with an emphasis on efficiency; to political and moral 
concerns for sustainability; to sentimental attachments to places, animals, and holidays. The 
fast-changing, fragmented reality of late capitalism promotes multiple interpretations, all 
apparently of equal value. Therefore, matters of scientific fact and matters of personal concern 
create a field of truths, each from a specific point of view and with a specific agenda. There are 
no more “risk-free objects” that exist free of judgment (Latour, 2004: 25).

 
  
      
     
 
 
 
 
    
      
       
     
  
     
       
       
      
         
 
      
  
 
 
         
   
 
    
    
       
   
    
     
     
       
     
   
    
    
 
64 
Within this framework, the present paper will discuss two topics: first, the digitization of urban 
governance and planning through the arrival of information technologies into the city debate 
and, second, the plurality of contemporary planning processes and the way consensus is being 
shaped by information technology. 
1.1 Information technologies and urban governance 
The problem of use of information technologies (IT) in urban planning and management can 
be explained by examples of intrusion of companies such as Siemens or IBM, which has created 
a new city market, connected to urban governance and planning. One of the more significant 
changes indicating this shift can be traced to technology fairs such as the CeBit in Hanover, 
Germany. Ten years ago, the fair was mainly focused on consumer electronics boasting new 
processors and digital gadgets; nowadays however, IBM and other technological giants are 
mainly focusing on the “soft part” of digital production, such as Software as a Service (SaaS)
solutions for the city market. One such example is IBM’s SaaS called “Intelligent Operations
Center” (IOC) (Internet 1). Rio de Janeiro is using the IOC platform to create the operations 
centre for the Prefecture of Rio, bringing all of its utility services under one roof (Figure 1). 
According to IBM, IOC technologies and services such as “integrated data visualization, real-
time collaboration, and deep analytics help city agencies prepare for problems, plan for growth, 
and coordinate and manage response efforts” (Internet 1).
Figure 1: IBM Intelligent Operations Center: an IBM solution for the Prefecture of Rio bringing all utility services 
under one roof (source: Internet 2). 
This development is commonly presented as the “smart city” trend in contemporary urban 
planning and governance. In recent popular discourse, the word “smartness” has been used to
describe a cybernetic system through which nature and culture are converted into digital 
information, and managed as such. The tendency to approach urban and cultural phenomena 
by raising them to ever more abstract levels of conceptualization makes their management 
appear easier (and more profitable for IBM), but it is achieved at the cost of reducing cultural 
and ethical issues to a managed system of figures, depriving them of all substantial content. 
Due to the need for economic efficiency and the persistent lobbying of the digital technology 
giants in the urban development sector, cities incorporate the digital solutions in order to stay 
current (Pipan, 2014: 158). In addition, this practice is perpetuated for political reasons to 
demonstrate to citizens and the public that the city administration is capable of proficient city 
management by increasing the wellbeing of individuals—the most important value indicator 
of a successful city. 

 
 
 
 
      
      
   
        
 
         
       
      
      
      
        
      
 
 
   
    
     
      
      
  
       
  
      
   
   
      
     
        
      
  
    
    
   
   
 
 
 
   
     
   
  
      
 
 
      
       
     
65 
The term smart city is heavily contested within the academic literature, from urban 
geographical definitions linking it to the knowledge economy (Caragliu et al., 2011) to 
humanities definitions referring to its ethics and meaning (Kitchin, 2016). However, a review 
of city literature shows a distinctive rise of the smart city debate from 2009 onwards as the 
field around smart city topics “constitutes a new collection of keywords and related concepts”
(de Jong et al., 2015: 34). As there might never emerge a single smart city definition, we will 
be using the broader philosophical idea of Bunschoten (2018:774), who states that the “essence
of the Smart City is the ability to control interactions between a user, a system, and the 
environment”. To this we might add that the purpose of such control is economic gains, 
something that IT multinationals like IBM, Google, and Siemens have achieved by establishing 
a new city market. The digital giants are additionally supported by large engineering firms 
since the smart city offers “concrete innovation and investment opportunities for physical urban
and infrastructure development” (de Jong et al., 2015: 34).
Within this heavily contested environment, saturated with information, the geographic 
information system (GIS) has been a classical solution leading the standard approach of spatial 
management, analysis, and planning. With new solutions and an ever increasing amount of 
data, it is becoming necessary for municipalities to “foster GIS specialists who can select GIS
software and hardware suitable for individual local government, prepare appropriate spatial 
data, and master them” (Kohsaka, 2000: 279) and that “experts and individuals who are
comfortable with GIS and spatial reasoning are focused to a greater extent on data creation and 
visualization using technology rather than decision-making processes” (Kar et al., 2016: 297). 
This leads us to the conclusion that in the contemporary information-saturated age, data cannot 
be accessed or viewed without an expert-technician, which consequently makes the process of 
decision-making slower. It is worth noting that the decision-makers and GIS professionals are 
two separate occupations. As Campagna and Deplano conclude, “GISs are farther away from 
being used in planning than one would expect and [the reason that] GISs are persistently 
underutilized […] might be that GIS packages never satisfy the planner’s need for flexibility”
(Campagna & Deplano, 2004: 23). Attempts to address this problem have given rise to a new 
direction in digital tools called planning support systems (PSSs). PSSs “bring together the
functionalities of geographical information systems (GIS), models, and visualization, to gather, 
structure, analyse, and communicate information in planning” (Vonk et al., 2007: 1699). These
promise to help make the utilization of spatial data simpler and more accessible to non-
professionals such as decision-makers and public participants. The interactive tangible PPSs 
presented in this paper focus on the visualization and communication segment, as their main 
goal is to make access to professional GIS information easier for non-professionals. 
1.2 Information technologies and public participation 
To outline the background of the second problem related to public participation we have to 
consider the question of the plurality of contemporary politics. Latour (2004) talks about a shift 
from “matters of fact” to “matters of concern” as a consequence of the post-modern condition, 
where the truths defined through the sciences of the last enlightenment (modernity) are not the 
only undisputed ones. In such an environment, the most proactive socially oriented 
governments open up the negotiation to a wider public. 
The idea of broader public participation is not a novelty of the contemporary urban planning 
process. In favour of civic practices in the West, it is worth mentioning a brief moment in 
history when something similar had been attempted in the newly developing cities in the United 

 
     
      
      
        
       
    
     
   
  
 
      
      
   
   
    
     
 
 
          
      
      
         
    
       
   
   
 
  
    
       
    
    
      
      
     
    
      
    
 
 
       
   
     
      
      
       
      
     
 
 
66 
States of America at the end of the 19
th 
century. John Dewey (1927) was a strong supporter of 
the right to the city, understood as civic and political participation. The concept of civic clubs 
was developed during the Progressive Era (from the end of the 1890s to the 1920s) in order to 
put “pressure on the state and other institutions [to create] democracy from below” (Amin &
Thrift, 2002: 133). These clubs were supposed to foster public deliberation, conversation, and 
education and thus to become models for politically engaged and productive citizens. However, 
the bottom-up organization of civic societies quickly gave way to a representative system and 
the “professionalization” of civic rights. In addition, the interest in politics was substituted with 
a much more “rewarding” yet complacent consumerism (Amin & Thrift, 2002: 134).
Currently the participation of the public is policy-regulated by the planning practices of EU 
countries. Public participation is mandatory on the level of the EU, as instructed by the 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) directive (85/337/EEC) as well as the Aarhus 
Convention on “Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access 
to Justice in Environmental Matters”. Amongst other things, the convention specifically defines 
public participation as mandatory “during the preparation of executive regulations and/or
generally applicable legally binding normative instruments” (UNECE, 1998).
In the same manner, for example, German planning and building policies rely heavily on an 
environmental basis, making it mandatory to have at least two public participation debates: 
first at the “preparatory land use planning level” (Flächennutzungsplan) and second at the 
“binding land use planning” (Bebauungsplan). These are “early public participation” and
“formal public participation”, respectfully, mandatory and rigorously regulated by the National 
Building Code (Pahl-Weber et al., 2008). In addition to these, there is a standing practice of 
informal planning instruments: from masterplans to participatory workshops (Beckmann & 
Wiegandt, 2000). The practice in Slovenia is similar. 
However, as the methods, approaches, rules of engagement and level of public engagement are 
not defined by EU conventions, the participation practices are very diverse. They can turn into 
an administrative exercise to facilitate the letter of the law rather than its spirit. Here the 
German best practice should serve as an example. One of the more recent confirmations of the 
ethical dimension in German planning practice was the non-binding “Tempelhofer Feld 
Referendum” in Berlin, where 64% of participants voted against the new developments. The 
result, in connection with the other public pressures, made the local administration decide to 
hold off on the private development due to strong public opposition (Hilbrandt, 2017). Even 
though Hilbrandt is critical of the aims and motivations behind public participation, it is evident 
that due to a long tradition of public participation and strong civic communities, such as the 
“100% Tempelhofer Feld” (www.thf100.de), public participation is planned for and considered 
seriously by the municipalities and districts. 
Public participation efforts and the inclusion of stakeholders have become a significant part of 
municipality politics and urban planning, not just in theory but also in actual engagement. This 
is corroborated by a large consultancy market for mediation in the form of agencies dealing 
specifically with public engagement, such as Zebralog GmbH & Co KG (Internet 3), IFOK 
GmbH (Internet 4) or Polidia GmbH (Internet 5). Whether these serve the administration in 
order to satisfy the legal requirements or whether they actually serve the public interest is a 
topic for a separate discussion. These examples show an emerging city administration practice, 
designed to both facilitate stakeholder engagement and manage public participation in order to 
reconcile urban conflicts. 

 
 
 
   
     
         
 
   
 
       
 
 
 
 
 
        
  
       
      
 
 
    
        
  
   
      
   
      
    
 
 
       
  
       
      
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
      
  
    
      
     
             
 
 
     
 
67 
With these two issues in mind, the increasing digitization and complexification of urban 
governance, due to ever-larger volumes of spatial data on one side and the growing demand for 
public participation in the planning process on the other, we set up the following two questions 
in order to test how two suggested interactive tangible PSSs help with the two problems: 
• Do the interactive PSSs offer easier access to professional spatial information to non-
professionals? 
• What is the functionality that interactive tangible PSSs contribute to public 
participation? 
2 Methodology 
We use a comparative method, an approach widely practiced in the humanities as well as the 
social sciences. First, we describe each technology separately, and, secondly, in the discussion 
section, we bring together their identified features to reveal the positive and negative sides of 
each. On the basis of this description, we then, thirdly, conclude by answering the questions 
set out in the introduction. 
The article employs a humanities approach rather than a quantitative social sciences one. This 
means performing a narrative comparison, where we do not raise all of urban life to the level 
of quantification and abstraction but instead examine examples concretely—descriptively. In 
this way, the two posed questions are addressed. Two research-by-practice examples are 
descriptively compared, where “human understanding arises from a process of inquiry that
involves creative action and critical reflection” (Sullivan, 2009: 51). This is similar to the 
anthropological research method of “thick description” as defined by Geertz (1973), where 
through a narrative description of a situation the meaning of the situation is qualified even for 
those who do not understand its cultural context. 
The present paper descriptively compares two interactive tangible PSSs, based upon the 
author’s personal experience in developing the Technical University Berlin’s Digital Scenario
Game and the journal papers and online accounts released by the authors of the MIT CityScope 
tool and its use at the HafenCity University (HCU). When appropriate, the paper refers to the 
existing academic literature, mainly in the form of review articles and theoretical and 
philosophical texts where more fundamental topics are concerned. 
3 Description of the two tangible PSSs 
GISs are specialized tools and are therefore technically complex, requiring specialist 
knowledge in order to produce results. O’Brien and Cheshire argue that “the creation of maps
from demographic data sets was undertaken by geographic information systems (GIS) 
specialists who had access to complex software packages” (2016: 676). A new generation of
online GIS platforms, such as the DataShine project visualising the UK 2011 census 
information (Internet 6), is making GIS data readily available for viewing to non-professionals. 
It enables a lay public “without previous GIS training to produce detailed maps from a huge
number of data sets” (ibid.). However, the data are not open to manipulation or used as part of 
an interactive digital tool where users can manipulate the digital information freely and on the 
spot. Furthermore, regarding Campagna and Deplano’s (2004) argument on the non-flexibility 
of GISs for decision-makers discussed earlier, we can add that in terms of the effort needed to 

 
       
    
     
     
     
     
 
     
   
      
       
  
       
   
      
    
 
     
     
        
       
 
 
 
 
    
     
   
        
  
  
     
   
 
 
                                                 
 
          
             
          
   
68 
carry out professional analysis and simulation, the classical GIS will never be used where “on
the fly” decisions, that need instantaneous feedback and information, are being made. “On the
fly” decisions refer to the kind of work that is carried out daily by decision-makers, developers 
and managers or in public participation workshops. For these users and urban stakeholders, a 
classical visualization of data from GIS information systems is a very limited use of digital 
technologies. There is ample room to expand the use of computers and GIS tools (Pipan, 2005). 
The fast pace of development and an increased amount of spatial information coming from 
various sources (professional GIS datasets as well as social media sources like Facebook and 
harnessing smartphone usage statistics like the Google Traffic function in Google Maps) 
requires a new generation of digital tools that are tailor-made for stakeholder participation in 
the urban development sphere. In recent years, IT companies as well as university departments, 
concerned with planning, spatial informatics and design, have initiated “city labs” in order to 
develop interactive tangible PSSs—fast and responsive tools that enable the kind of strategic 
decision-making that employs real-time data. The aim of these tools is to be interactive through 
tangible objects to make spatial information more accessible to various professions and publics. 
The present paper will discuss two such interactive examples. The first is the Digital Scenario 
Game, developed at the Chair for Sustainable Planning and Urban Design, Technical 
University Berlin, as part of the Modelling City Systems (MCS), Climate KIC research. The 
second example is the CityScope interactive tool, developed by the Changing Places group at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
3.1 Digital Scenario Game 
Digital Scenario Game is based on the methodology of Scenario Games.
1 
The theoretical 
source here is provided by Urban Flotsam (Bunschoten et al., 2001) which defines the urban 
practice “in collaboration with other practices, inhabitants, users, clients, decision makers,
producers and investors.” According to this text, it is role of “Urban Curators” to “orchestrate 
this shift in practice, detect emergent phenomena, designate cities as metaspaces, form 
galleries, and curate their contents” (Bunschoten et al., 2001: 447). Corner comments on the 
approach as a “projection of ‘game-board’ structures. These are conceived as shared working
surfaces upon which various competing constituencies are invited to meet to work out 
differences” (Corner, 2011: 239).
1 
Scenario Games is a practical implementation of urban gallery methodology (Bunschoten et al., 2001). The 
following description is based on the document “Urban Gallery Reader”, authored by Tomaž Pipan as part of 
the PhD research at the London Metropolitan University, partly funded by the Slovenian Human Resources 
Development and Scholarship Fund. 

 
 
 
 
          
     
 
   
     
    
     
    
    
     
        
        
    
  
 
 
 
        
     
 
69 
Figure 2: Students playing a classical (analogue) Scenario Game. A negotiation workshop at the El Gouna TU 
Berlin Campus, Egypt, 2014 (photo: Tomaž Pipan).
An “analogue” Scenario Game creates an environment where different claims on the territory
can be confronted and reconciled. “A game reflects reality in that it models its conflicts, but
also its dynamics and its ability to construct and develop strategies and pursue them”
(Bunschoten 2018). It is a classic example of design thinking methodology working with open-
ended questions implemented in the urban planning environment to settle claims on a territory 
and adapt them to function together. Scenario Games are played with playing cards on a playing 
board. The playing cards hold spatial or stakeholder information, problems and opportunities. 
These can be used for a discussion of the issues at hand which can then be drawn on a map 
with crayons. The playing board is an actual location, an urban territory (Figure 2). As Corner 
sums it up, “the graphic map provides the game-board for playing out a range of urban futures. 
Identified players and actors are brought together to try to work out complex urban issues 
within an open-ended generative structure” (Corner, 2011: 243).
Figure 3: An example of Digital Scenario Game with drawing capabilities where cards trigger spatial information 
to discuss possible scenarios. (photo: Tomaž Pipan)

 
    
       
    
        
    
      
      
   
     
 
 
        
    
      
      
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
            
       
 
  
      
   
       
      
    
    
                                                 
         
    
70 
Digital Scenario Game
2 
is a translation and an upgrade of the described concept. It uses industry 
standard interactive digital table and computers (Figure 3). The playful moment of the classical 
Scenario Game is maintained by retaining the playing cards and equipping them with QR codes 
through which the cards are dynamically linked to a digital database. The placement of cards 
onto the interactive table at the time of negotiation dynamically triggers and displays digital 
content, from images and maps to movies, graphs, and GIS information (through WMS 
service). The information needs to be prepared beforehand by the participants through the 
online web service. Digital Scenario Game can be expanded with additional projections to 
dynamically show varied information (triggered by the cards) at the time of negotiation on 
different outputs such as screens, wall projections and the like. 
Digital Scenario Game is a real-time dynamic scenario tool that enables different stakeholders 
to co-develop scenarios for a particular area in real time. The scenarios are developed by direct 
visual interaction between the stakeholders and a spatial information database. By placing cards 
on the interactive table, GIS and other information are displayed dynamically, to which the 
participants can react by drawing and thereby conducting a structured discussion (Gauglitz, 
2015). The final product of this negotiation is a Scenario Game Report—a step-by-step record 
of the process with final conclusions and suggested actions (Figure 4). By comparing different 
scenarios, the stakeholders can decide which scenario(s) should be retained, changed or further 
explored. 
Figure 4: A sequence of print screens (simulation) – a product of negotiation in the Digital Scenario Game. The 
sequences form a basis for final reporting (illustration: Tomaž Pipan).
The Digital Scenario Game proof of concept was first showcased at the 2015 Metropolitan 
Solutions fair in Berlin as part of the “TU Berlin BrainBox: Smart City Berlin 2030” exhibition
(Ledwig & Asualyuk, 2015: 76). Under the direction of the present author and with the help of 
TU Berlin students, we additionally developed a simulation of a negotiation to test the 
functionality and capability of the Digital Scenario Game at the “Lange Nacht der 
Wissenschaften 2015” exhibition in Berlin (Gauglitz, 2015). A later version without the
recording functions and with a detailed, on-screen presentation of local GIS information was 
2 
The Digital Scenario Game is one part of a larger concept developed at the Technical University Berlin, called 
the Conscious-City-Lab, formerly BrainBox (Internet 7). 

 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
      
     
    
    
     
     
      
   
  
      
    
  
 
 
      
  
 
    
       
         
        
       
   
 
 
      
  
     
         
     
    
       
    
 
71 
used in Utrecht as part of the Smart Sustainable District (SSD) Climate KIC project (USIUrban, 
2016). 
3.2 CityScope 
CityScope technology was developed by the Changing Places group of the MIT Media Lab. 
The initial technology disclosure paper is titled “System for Real-time Digital Reconstruction 
and 3D Projection-Mapping of Arbitrarily Many Tagged Physical Objects” (Winder, 2015).
“CityScope is an integrated hardware and software platform that merges parametric, voxelized 
simulations with user-friendly interactive tangible interfaces” (Winder, 2014). It uses an 
interactive tangible Lego-based interface to create scenarios of urban development based on 
predefined algorithms, using GIS information for the calculation of new spatial information in 
real time. By placing the Lego bricks, which act as parameters, the algorithms recalculate the 
spatial information and show the new results as maps (Figure 5). Noyman et al. (2017: 2465) 
tie the CityScope technology to a long tradition of research into the interactive tangible-
computational platforms at MIT; however, CityScope was built specifically to make “complex
urban questions accessible and tangible to various audiences”. 
Figure 5: CityScope technology presented by Ira Winder on the walkability example (source: 
CentreforLiveableCities, 2016). 
The system is a combination of technologies: 3D-tagged objects (Lego bricks), projector, 
computer, sensor, and display (Winder, 2015). It encompasses many different software module 
functionalities, from using the tactile interface of Lego bricks as buttons and switches to using 
them as tagged elements in a scenario. A highly didactic example is a walkability simulation 
(Figure 5) presented in the product video for the World City Summit 2016 in Singapore in 
collaboration with the Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Redevelopment Authority 
Singapore (CentreforLiveableCities, 2016). 
CityScope as a commercial service needs additional bespoke programming to solve a specific 
task. It requires preparation of spatial information and integration with specific algorithms that 
calculate a spatial solution. For example, CityScope can be made to solve a question of 
walkability in an area where walkability is presented as a “function of the amenity and their
placement” (CentreforLiveableCities, 2016). By placing new amenities, such as shopping areas 
or hospitals, walkability increases. By placing different type of amenities in different locations, 
scenarios of different walkability capacities can be compared and the most optimal one chosen. 
In other words, by direct tangible interaction with the Lego blocks, users can change scenarios 
of development in real time. Through algorithms, actions change spatial data and trigger 

 
  
      
 
 
   
   
       
         
    
   
   
    
     
    
        
    
     
  
 
 
 
 
      
    
      
  
         
 
 
 
 
      
   
   
      
     
       
       
     
       
    
    
    
     
  
      
  
      
      
 
72 
instantaneous recalculations of values, which are then projected as results back to users. This 
feedback of action can be a calculated result in the form of the influences, impacts and 
performance of the current urban setup. 
CityScope has been tested and commercially implemented in numerous situations. The HCU 
CityScienceLab in collaboration with city of Hamburg has implemented a series of stakeholder 
engagement workshops (Internet 8) where the CityScope technology is used in public 
workshops as a tool to dissipate tensions, connected to the topic of refugee accommodation: 
“The goal was to incorporate the citizens’ personal experience and local knowledge into the 
political and administrative evaluation of potential locations” (Noyman et al., 2017: 2465).
Between May and July 2016, the HCU held 34 two-hour workshops for the seven districts of 
Hamburg with a total of 400 participants. With the help of CityScope technology, the 
participants were able to identify 44 prospective sites for accommodation out of the initial 161 
(Noyman et al., 2017: 2469-70). The participatory framework enabled the stakeholders to 
dynamically act upon GIS data, such as plot programs and ownership, as well as act upon their 
own understanding and local experiences. As reported by the team, the citizens “felt as partners 
in an ‘eye-level’ dialogue with [the] policy makers and city administration” (Noyman et al., 
2017: 2471). 
4 Discussion 
When it comes to the two questions posed regarding the interactive tangible PSSs, four main 
topics were identified, which will be discussed here. In terms of access to professional spatial 
information for non-professionals, (1) tangible interface and physical setup, and (2) data 
provision and workshop accessibility are discussed. In terms of PPSs’ role in augmenting 
public participation, (3) augmenting the public knowledge and (4) unique functionality are 
addressed. 
4.1 Tangible interface and physical setup 
The tangible interface (playing cards in the Digital Scenario Game and Lego bricks in 
CityScope) creates easier access to professional information. Instinctive physical gestures are 
used to trigger complex functions or reveal spatial information that would otherwise require 
computer peripherals. However, one technical limitation of both systems is the size of the 
technology. When facilitating public participation, it is important to accommodate the 
workshops locally, in a public hall or administrative office. This means moving the setup 
around to different places. Due to the tangible functionality, both technologies are large 
physical setups. The industry standard interactive table used in the Digital Scenario Game is 
approximately 1.6 m × 1 m in size. The interactive tables at the HCU are bespoke tables 2 m ×
2 m large. Combined with the need for a good Internet connection, dedicated computers, 
screens and projections, these are physical and technical limitations that require significant 
time and effort for transport and setup. The FindingPlaces workshops in Hamburg using the 
CityScope technology solved the problem by hosting all workshops at the HCU in the 
CityScienceLab, which the participants found inconvenient (Noyman et al., 2017: 2471). 
Public participation can be very sensitive, and such reasons can affect the number of 
participants and their mood, biases and willingness to give relevant feedback. The same 
problem was faced by the Digital Scenario Game technology when a workshop required its 
transportation. Due to all the complications, we decided to do a classical “analogue” scenario 
game without the digital table. 

 
 
 
 
  
 
       
    
   
    
         
   
       
        
        
    
 
 
   
  
     
   
 
       
   
    
   
      
       
   
 
 
 
 
      
       
 
 
       
       
   
     
     
      
   
 
 
    
  
    
      
   
73 
4.2 Data provision and workshop outreach 
The preparation of the data for the Digital Scenario Game can be done by all the participants 
prior to or during the workshop. Through an online interface, participants can upload images, 
texts, locations, problems and ideas. This contributes to a more informed participation 
environment and ensures better participant turnout. When it comes to professional information, 
GIS data can be uploaded via a web map service, for which GIS knowledge is already required. 
Integration of existing GIS databases is also possible but requires geoinformatics and 
programming skills, usually supplied by the developers. Similar limitations are observed with 
the CityScope technology. As it works on the basis of GIS information, the data have to be 
properly formatted and connected to the interactive environment. For special types of 
interactions (like the HCU FindingPlaces workshops), bespoke algorithms have to be created 
(Noyman et al., 2017: 2468-9). 
In terms of workshop outreach, the specificity of such intense participatory workshop formats 
is that the participation is considered successful when the number of participants per curator 
falls within a certain boundary. Only then can the decision-making process be well-informed. 
This largely depends on the method of the design thinking process applied. For the Digital 
Scenario Game, this is on the order of four to eight people per curator. Larger groups do not 
achieve the desired effect due to constant deliberations instead of a proactive solving of the 
problems. In the case of FindingPlaces, the workshops accommodated at most 20 people per 
session (Noyman et al., 2017: 2469). To accommodate a larger number of participants, the 
workshop group would need to be multiplied. This also means multiplying the number of 
interactive tools per individual workshop, a limitation for formats where public opinion needs 
to be gathered on a massive scale. For such formats, companies like Zebralog use proprietary 
online solutions. For example, the “Dialogzentrale, the ‘mother of all dialogues’, offers a
platform with participation infrastructure and various modules” (Internet 9).
4.3 Types of participation augmentation 
The two examples described above show two different approaches to using digital interactive 
technology in terms of augmenting public participation. We could classify them as passive and 
active planning support augmentations. 
The Digital Scenario Game is of the passive kind. It is a solution that uses digital technology 
in order to represent the gathered information in a faster, more convenient and dynamic way, 
giving access to spatial data “on the fly”. In addition, it can record the process of negotiation
to review and improve the scenarios. It does not create additional spatial data: all of the creation 
and speculation is done based on the participants’ knowledge and experience. In this sense, it
is also a tool for capturing professional knowledge on one side and public opinion and 
suggestions on the other. This augmentation significantly enhances participation because it 
automates certain parts of negotiation and makes it run more smoothly. 
The CityScope technology is an active kind, with simulation capabilities based on pre-
implemented algorithms that generate new spatial data in real time. The algorithms extrapolate 
the most likely solution and offer it as a given to the users of the negotiation process. The 
CityScope technology actively changes the negotiation process by suggesting simulated 
results. The results in turn largely depend on the analytical expertise and technical skills of the 

 
        
 
 
 
 
 
        
   
     
         
       
 
 
    
   
    
       
        
  
        
      
  
 
 
 
 
     
     
    
     
 
 
   
 
   
   
         
     
   
   
     
   
         
 
     
 
 
    
     
     
74 
programmers. This is a very advanced type of participation augmentation and a unique 
functionality, whose problems and limitations are addressed below and in the conclusion. 
4.4 Unique functionality 
The passive Digital Scenario Game is able to present spatial information in a more convenient 
way than classic GIS can; however, it cannot offer a synthesis. The interpretation of spatial 
data, from understanding the maps to reading the graphs, is still largely dependent upon the 
participants’ skill and experience, which suggests that the reaction of the lay public might be 
limited. It is, however, a good tool to trace and record public “mood”, bring experts and the
local public together, and gather local spatial information that otherwise might not be available 
to the professionals.. 
The active CityScope offers synthesis and interpretation of spatial information in the form of 
speculated simulated results, such as the dynamically changing walkability maps that respond 
to users’ interactions. This means that the lay public can act on information that is more 
complex and devise a solution which is a product of the professional knowledge imbedded in 
the algorithms. However, one of the more serious limitations we have to consider is the method 
through which the simulated spatial information is produced. Just as the lay public is perhaps 
unable to mentally work out and project the walkability, it is equally difficult to understand the 
simulated result in its entirety. This must be taken into account when using and interpreting 
such participatory results. 
5 Conclusion 
The paper discusses two examples of interactive tangible PSSs to illuminate how PSSs increase 
the usability of professional spatial information on one hand and how they contribute to 
consensus-making on the other. It investigates the ways in which to bring different stakeholders 
together in a structured way to manage the process of urbanization and to ensure better usability 
of digital spatial information in the participatory planning process, specifically: 
1. Do the interactive PSSs offer easier access to professional spatial information to non-
professionals? 
In terms of “tangible interface and physical setup” (see 4.1), the tangible aspect helps with the 
access to the information; however, the physical size and difficulties with the transportation of 
interactive PSSs are a big hindrance to scaling the services. This also presents a limitation to 
the inclusion of a wider public in the negotiation process, subsequently lowering the access to 
spatial information for non-professionals. We considered turning the Digital Scenario Game 
into an online solution (SaaS), thus losing the tactile moment of physical cards. This would 
make it more portable; however, the tactile moment is very important to design thinking 
methods for public participation as it gives people control and authority. We have to conclude 
that size and technical complexity are limitations of the interactive tactile PSSs that will be 
hard to overcome. If the tactile moment makes access to the professional spatial information 
easier for participants, it is the physical setup that limits the scalability and wider public 
outreach of such systems. 
In terms of “data preparation and workshop outreach” (see 4.2), we can conclude that the 
preparation of information by users for the Digital Scenario Game is fairly easy when 
considering uploading information prior to the workshop. However, the main hurdle of having 

 
 
 
      
    
     
         
   
    
     
     
    
   
 
  
   
  
 
  
   
        
     
    
 
 
 
       
  
     
    
         
 
 
 
        
    
    
       
     
    
   
  
 
     
      
      
   
   
  
     
     
      
75 
to prepare the GIS information by GIS experts and make it product-ready remains unresolved. 
CityScope’s problems are even more pronounced as it cannot be used without the serious 
preparation of information for every specific problem. In terms of workshop outreach, the 
workshops can accommodate only a rather small number of stakeholders. This is a serious 
hindrance, especially when it is important to gather a huge amount of information. In this 
regard, online digital participation solutions offered by existing participation providers such as 
Zebralog, IFOK or Polidia make more sense. This also shows an inherent limitation of 
interactive digital tools for public participation. Online digital tools can cover relatively large 
public samples, which in turn limits the capacity of individuals to significantly contribute to 
urban decisions. On the other hand, the interactive tangible PSSs can cover a focus group that 
can make concrete suggestions but might not be representative of a larger public sample. 
2. What is the functionality that interactive tangible PSSs contribute to public participation? 
In reference to “unique functionality” (see 4.4), both technologies show significant promise 
when it comes to raising the quality of public participation. 
Digital Scenario Game enables the participants to adduce and refer to classical spatial 
information in real time during the process of negotiation—something that the classical GIS 
solutions cannot. It can be seen as the next step to online user-friendly GIS services such as 
DataShine. The capacity to show dynamically different spatial information and other visual 
information helps curators of the scenario to better inform the participants and to achieve a 
better output. On the other hand, the limitation—as well as the advantage—of such solution is 
that the technology represents only the spatial information and makes no judgment upon it. 
The CityScope technology enables decision-making and negotiation on the basis of synthesis 
and spatial information generated in real time. This allows the lay public to make decisions on 
the basis of the expert knowledge imbedded in the algorithms. CityScope can be understood as 
a next-generation digital support tool that actively engages in the participation process. 
However, this does not make moot the point of required spatial literacy, such as understanding 
geographic maps. It was reported that the “non-expert participants had trouble understanding 
the professional planning content” (Noyman et al., 2017: 2471).
In reference to the “types of participation augmentation” (see 4.3) in the active CityScope 
example, we have to consider that the public’s decisions are dependent upon the results 
generated by an algorithm whose logic is dependent upon the programmer. If instead the 
algorithm was replaced by a dynamic process curated and moderated by an expert (for example, 
an urban planner explaining, commenting and showing possibilities for better walkability), the 
participants’ decisions might be different. The simulated solutions presented by the computer 
are rendered as undisputed truths with a single presentation of a solution, circumventing 
Latour’s “matters of concern” and painting them as “matters of fact”.
The matter-of-fact character of results generated by digital technologies is useful for planning 
administrations as it gives concrete answers where otherwise there are none. The solutions 
miraculously appear and are taken as “scientific fact”, releasing individuals (city officials and 
scientists alike) from responsibility on one hand and making the process seem objective, 
transparent and convincing on the other. This needs to be taken into account when analysing 
and using results of such type. Noyman et al. also cautions that “the approach runs danger of 
becoming instrumentalized by political forces or interest groups” (2017: 2472). This suggests
that it is of paramount importance to put in charge of such negotiations a professional who can 
interpret both the data and visual results as well as the stakeholders’ input. The idea of a new

 
     
 
 
     
      
    
     
  
   
    
    
    
    
   
       
        
        
 
 
       
      
    
   
 
      
        
   
     
   
      
   
    
     
     
    
 
 
 
       
  
 
 
 
 
         
            
       
       
        
        
 
76 
profession, a curator-designer, is emerging as a new type of expertise that would also need 
fostering in architectural and planning schools (Pipan, 2014: 162). 
In conclusion, we need to consider the popular belief that general public participation brings 
about wider public acceptance and better public consensus. Hillier (2003) traces the deeply 
rooted cultural belief that consensus is synonymous with good social ethics to Habermas’s 
“theory of communicative action”, in which “reciprocal understanding” presupposes humans
as explicitly rational beings. However, Hillier (2003: 41) argues that “the ideals of
communicative rationality and consensus-formation are rarely achieved”. In a similar manner,
in reference to practical examples, Hilbrandt (2017: 546) clearly points out that “planners 
willingly admitted that participation was suspended at crucial moments [...] in order to 
circumvent a broader public debate”. This alludes to the fact that public consensus is a cultural 
bias and a (mis)interpretation of the plural right to the city and is not necessarily achievable. 
One of the pragmatic reasons we can single out is the sheer number of people living in 
contemporary cities, rendering direct democracy unfit for consensus. Even Arendt, an avid 
supporter of the political civic city, acknowledges the problem of size and scope in achieving 
consensus. We can see the “civic city” being forfeited to the “social city”, especially because
“the larger the population in any given body politic, the more likely it will be the social rather
than the political that constitutes the public realm” (Arendt, 1985: 43). 
In final conclusion, it is the opinion of the author that, first, the lay public can take more 
informed decisions through public participation by having the digital information ready at hand 
in real time during the participation event. However, whether their suggestions and input 
meaningfully contribute to the planning process is not dependent upon the sophistication of the 
digital technologies employed but upon the city administration and the ethics of governance. 
Secondly, the urban planning solutions that go through the process of public participation with 
interactive tangible PSSs will benefit from local knowledge that otherwise cannot be obtained. 
However, it is of paramount importance that the professional—the curator-designer—curates 
and manages the process. Such a professional has unique knowledge to interpret spatial 
information on one side and manage the diverse intentions of the participants on the other. This 
is even more important for the active tangible interactive PSSs like CityScope, where the results 
generated need context that only a professional can provide. Yet, the need for the reconciliation 
of large numbers of people and the inherent need for direct democracy in larger cities is a 
cultural bias, and will thus not be solved through an implementation of new technologies but 
rather needs an understanding of what public participation means and can achieve in 
combination with a high level of ethical responsibility that should be fostered within urban 
culture. 
Tomaž Pipan, University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Landscape Architecture, Ljubljana, 
Slovenia (tomaz.pipan@bf.uni-lj.si) 
Acknowledgments 
The Digital Scenario Game PSS was developed at the Chair for Sustainable Planning and Urban Design, 
Technical University Berlin. It was partly funded by the EIT, Climate KIC, under the Modelling City Systems 
project. The Digital Scenario Game tool was developed as part of Work Stream II-6: Development of 
multimedia performance space: BrainBox (later renamed Conscious-City-Lab). Developers of the digital 
interactive Scenario Game: Lead: Dr. Tomaž Pipan; Holger Prang, Akitoshi Honda, Arne Siebenmorgen,
Matthias Lieb, Murad Mulhem, Steven Watson. Project supervisor: prof. Raoul Bunschoten. 

 
 
 
 
 
           
          
             
  
               
         
 
              
 
            
          
                
  
     
     
             
           
        
            
       
    
          
          
     
          
         
      
            
   
     
 
    
    
   
    
     
    
    
    
               
      
          
    
           
      
               
  
            
      
                 
           
 
            
    
               
   
          
77 
References 
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: reimagining the urban. Cambridge, UK, Polity. 
Arendt, H. (1958) The human condition. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press. 
Beckmann, G. & Wiegandt, C. C. (eds.) (2000) Stadtentwicklung und Städtebau in Deutschland: ein Überblick. 
Bonn, BBR. 
Bunschoten, R. (2018) From smart city to conscious city. In: Holstenkamp, L. & Radtke, J. (eds.) Handbuch 
Energiewende und Partizipation, pp. 769–791. Wiesbaden, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. DOI: 
10.1007/978-3-658-09416-4_46 
Bunschoten, R., Hoshino, T. & Binet, H. (2001) Urban flotsam stirring the city: CHORA. Rotterdam, 010 
Publishers. 
Campagna, M. & Deplano, G. (2004) Evaluating geographic information provision within public administration 
websites. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, pp. 21–37. DOI: 10.1068/b12966 
Caragliu, A., Bo, C. D. & Nijkamp, P. (2011) Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), pp. 
65–82. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601117 
CentreforLiveableCities (2016) Demonstration of CLC-MIT’s tangible interactive modelling. Available at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EEyB-rsHew (accessed 4 May 2017). 
Corner, J. (2011) The agency of mapping: speculation, critique and invention. In: Dodge, M., Kitchin, R. & 
Perkins, C. (eds.) The map reader: Theories of mapping practice and cartographic representation, pp. 89–
101. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9780470979587.ch12 
de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C. & Weijnen, M. (2015) Sustainable–smart–resilient–low–carbon–
eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal 
of Cleaner Production, 109, pp. 25–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004 
Dewey, J. (1927) The public and its problems. London, Allen & Unwin. 
Gauglitz, D. (2015) CHORA Conscious City Lab @ Lange Nacht der Wissenschaften 2015 in Berlin. Available 
at: https://vimeo.com/137976637 (accessed 23 Jan. 2018). 
Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, Basic Books. 
Hilbrandt, H. (2017) Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-
Tempelhof airport. Urban Geography, 38(4), pp. 537–556. 
Hillier, J. (2003) `Agon’izing Over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals cannot be `Real’. Planning Theory, 2(1), 
pp. 37–59. DOI: 10.1177/1473095203002001005 
Internet 1: https://www.ibm.com/us-en/marketplace/city-insights (accessed 5 May 2017). 
Internet 2: https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/May-3-Post-Sala-de-Controle1.jpg, 
(accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 3: www.zebralog.de (accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 4: www.ifok.de (accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 5: www.polidia.de (Accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 6: http://datashine.org.uk (Accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 7: http://www.chora.tu-berlin.de/Conscious-City-Lab/ (accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 8: https://findingplaces.hamburg/ (accessed 19 June 2018). 
Internet 9: https://www.streifentechnik.de/#about (accessed 30 Jan. 2018). 
Kar, B., Sieber, R., Haklay, M. & Ghose, R. (2016) Public participation GIS and participatory GIS in the era of 
GeoWeb. The Cartographic Journal, 53(4), pp. 296–299. DOI: 10.1080/00087041.2016.1256963 
Kitchin, R. (2016) The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 
A, 374(2083), pp. 1-15. 
Kohsaka, H. (2000) Applications of GIS to urban planning and management: Problems facing Japanese local 
governments. GeoJournal, 52(3), pp. 271–280. DOI: 10.1023/A:1014228426254 
Latour, B. (2004) Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridege, MA, Harvard 
University Press. 
Ledwig, M. T. & Asualyuk, A. (eds.) (2015) Metropolitan solutions magazine 2015. Stuttgart, Local global 
GmbH. Available at: https://issuu.com/localglobal/docs/msm_final_low_1105 (accessed 22 January 2018). 
Noyman, A., Holtz, T., Kröger, J., Noenning, J. R. & Larson, K. (2017) Finding places: HCI platform for public 
participation in refugees’ accommodation process. Procedia Computer Science, 112, pp. 2463–2472. DOI: 
10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.180 
O’Brien, O. & Cheshire, J. (2016) Interactive mapping for large, open demographic data sets using familiar
geographical features. Journal of Maps, 12(4), pp. 676–683. DOI: 10.1080/17445647.2015.1060183 
Pahl-Weber, E. & Henckel, D. (eds.) (2008) The planning system and planning terms in Germany: A glossary. 
Available at: http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/28560 (accessed: 1 Jul. 2016). 
Pipan, T. (2005) Računalnik kot generativno orodje. Urbani izziv, 16(2), pp. 88–93. 

 
              
        
               
          
  
            
          
    
    
             
     
       
     
            
    
  
78 
Pipan, T. (2014) Teaching for urban complexity in smart cities. In: Fikfak, A. & Mojca, V. (eds.) Smart urbanism: 
Teaching sustainability, pp. 157–167. Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture. 
Sullivan, G. (2009) Making Space: The purpose and place of practice-led research. In: Smith, H. & Dean, R. T. 
(eds.) Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University 
Press. 
UNECE - The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1998) Convention on access to information, 
public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters. Aarhus. 
USIUrban (2016) SSD Utrecht interaction table. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u30R5F8SDhc 
(accessed 4 May 2017). 
Vonk, G., Geertman, S. & Schot, P. (2007) A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environment and 
Planning A, 39, pp. 1699–1714. DOI: 10.1068/a38262 
Winder, I. (2014) City planning technology invented by MIT - CityScope Mark II. Available at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEH01UvjzD0 (accessed 4 May 2017). 
Winder, I. (2015) System for real-time digital reconstruction and 3D projection-mapping of arbitrarily many 
tagged physical objects. Provisional Patents.