Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/19034
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCONSTANTINESCU, Teodora-
dc.contributor.authorDEVISCH, Oswald-
dc.contributor.authorHUYBRECHTS, Liesbeth-
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-27T10:35:25Z-
dc.date.available2015-07-27T10:35:25Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationWillis, Katharine S.; Aurigi, Alessandro; Phillips, Mike; Corino, Gianni (Ed.). Proceedings MEDIACITY 5 International Conference, Workshops and Urban Interventions, p. 263-279-
dc.identifier.isbn9789491789137-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/19034-
dc.description.abstractCapacity building refers to the process of improving the ability of a person, group, organization, or institute to meet a set of stated objectives (Brown et al., 2001). Spatial capacity building can take form in participatory ways, with many participants that need to be understood and involved in order to come to new ways of seeing spatial issues, relationships and options (Forester, 2000). When addressing complex urban projects, the variety of stakeholders that is required has a direct impact on the quality of the project, the budget and the power to speed it up or slow it down. Trying to overcome these challenges, policy makers have been experimenting with different participatory forms of governance, but were confronted with the lack of motivation among players (persons, organizations, …), inability to foster long term engagement and actors involvement. Having the ability to foster cooperation and understanding, games have been used as a tool to ease this process. Participation is described by Pelle Ehn as a meeting point between language games of people with each their expertise (1988). In this paper we review three serious games that serve as potential tools for fostering civic learning and collective efficacy in participatory processes. Civic learning emphasizes active participation in the process of public decision making and establishment of public policies (Gordon & Baldwin-Philippi, 2014, p. 770), while coming to understand the relation between semantic and social patterns across the broad span of economic activities, social media, public and private actors. Collective efficacy on the other hand, is “the linkage of mutual trust and the willingness to intervene for the common good that defines the neighborhood context of collective efficacy. Just as individuals vary in their capacity for efficacious action, so too do neighborhoods vary in their capacity to achieve common goals” (Sampson et al., 1997, p. 919). Looking at games such as Participatory Chinatown and SprintCity we can analyze the importance digital role-play games have on transforming face-to-face community meetings into usable feedback for the planning processes and creating mutual visibility among institutions and individuals. Rezone challenge the players to not just pursue individual self-interest but to strategically collaborate in order to make decision for the common good. The games experiment in areas of public communication and social organization where different stakeholders collaborate on problems that can’t be solved through present regulations alone. Social feedback loops based on participatory processes and analysis of data can be an effective catalyst for increasing collective reflection and collective action. Their main goal is to create and establish a dialogue between individuals and institutions to identify, discuss, and act on pressing societal problems. Thus, the paper researches to what extent serious games play a role in generating collective efficacy and civic learning and apply those findings to complex societal issues.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherSchool of Architecture, Design & Environment and i-DAT (Institute of Digital Art and Technology), Plymouth University-
dc.titleCivic Participation: Serious Games and Spatial Capacity Building-
dc.typeProceedings Paper-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsWillis, Katharine S.-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsAurigi, Alessandro-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsPhillips, Mike-
local.bibliographicCitation.authorsCorino, Gianni-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencedate1st – 3rd May 2015-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencenameMEDIACITY 5 : Reflecting on Social Smart Cities-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferenceplacePlymouth, UK-
dc.identifier.epage279-
dc.identifier.spage263-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatC1-
local.publisher.placePlymouth, UK-
dc.relation.referencesArnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, pp. 216-224. Borries, F. von, Walz, S. P. and Böttger, M. (eds.). 2007. Space Time Play, Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: the Next Level. Basel: Birkhäuser. Brandt, E. & Grunnet, C. 2000. Evoking the future: Drama and Props in use centered design. In Proc. PDC2000. Bratteteig, T. & Wagner, I. Disentangling participation. Power and decision-making in Participatory Design. London/New York, Springer. Brown L., LaFond A., & Macintyre K. 2001. Measuring capacity building. MEASURE Evaluation Report, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Crookall, D. 2010. Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline, Simulation Gaming, 41(6), pp. 898-920. Duke, R.D. 2011. Origin and Evolution of Policy Simulation: A Personal Journey. Simulation & Gaming XX(X), SAGE Publications. p. 1–17. Ehn, Pelle & Sjogren, Dan. 1991. From System Descriptions to Scripts for Action, in Design at Work: cooperative design of computer systems (p. 241-268), edited by Joan Greenbaum and Morten Kyng, Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers. Feindt, P.H.; Newig, J. 2005. Politische Ökonomie von Partizipation und Öffentlichkeits-beteiligung im Nachhaltitgkeitskontext. Probleme und Forschungsperspektiven. In: Feindt, P.H.; Newig, J. (eds.): Partizipation, Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Nachhaltigkeit. Perspektiven der politischen Ökonomie. Marburg, Metropolis. p. 9-40. Feldt, A.G. 2013. CLUG: Community Land Use Game (8th edition). (www.clug.co). Forester, J. The Deliberative Practitioner. Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. The MIT Press, Cambridge-Massachusetts, London. 2000. Gordon, E. & Baldwin-Philippi, J. 2014. Playful Civic Learning: Enabling Reflection and Lateral Trust in Game-based Public Participation, International Journal of Communication, 8,759–786. Hagedorn, K. 2002. Environmental co-operation and institutional change. Theories and policies for European agriculture. Cheltenham. Elgar. Healy, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in fragmented Societies. McMillanPress Ltd. Huybrechts, L., Dreessen, K., Schepers, S. (2012). Mapping design practices: on risk, hybridity and participation. Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Vol. 2 (12). Participatory Design Conference. Roskilde,12-16 August 2012 (pp. 29-32). Danvers, MA: ACM. McQuail, D. 2010. Mass Communication Theory. 6th Edition. London: Sage Publications. Mitchell, B. 2005. Participatory partnerships: Engaging and empowering to enhance environmental management and quality of life? Social Indicators Research. Vol. 71. p.123-144. Pares, M. & March, H. 2013. Short Guides for Citizen Participation. Guide to Evaluating Participatory Processes. Volume 3. Department of Governance and Institutional Relations. Peltenburg, M., de Wit, J., & Davidson, F. 2000. Capacity building for urban management: learning from recent experiences. Habitat International 24, 363-373. Poplin, A. 2012. Playful public participation in urban planning: A case study for online serious games, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems (CEUS), 36(3), pp. 195-206. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications, London. Reinart, B. and A. Poplin. 2014. Games in urban planning – a comparative study, in: M. Schrenk, V. V. Popovich, P. Zeile and P. Elisei (Eds.) Real Corp 2014 Proceedings. Salgado, M. & Galanakis, M. 2014. “... so what?”- Limitations of Participatory Design on Decision-making in Urban Planning. In Proc. PDC214. Namibia: PDC2014. Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W. & Earls, F. 1997. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924. Squire, K. 2011. Video Games and Learning: Teaching and Participatory Culture in the Digital Age. Technology, Education--Connections (the TEC Series). Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027. (pp. 5-9).-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedAbstract-
local.identifier.vabbc:vabb:415288-
local.bibliographicCitation.btitleProceedings MEDIACITY 5 International Conference, Workshops and Urban Interventions-
item.validationvabb 2019-
item.accessRightsOpen Access-
item.fullcitationCONSTANTINESCU, Teodora; DEVISCH, Oswald & HUYBRECHTS, Liesbeth (2015) Civic Participation: Serious Games and Spatial Capacity Building. In: Willis, Katharine S.; Aurigi, Alessandro; Phillips, Mike; Corino, Gianni (Ed.). Proceedings MEDIACITY 5 International Conference, Workshops and Urban Interventions, p. 263-279.-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.contributorCONSTANTINESCU, Teodora-
item.contributorDEVISCH, Oswald-
item.contributorHUYBRECHTS, Liesbeth-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Civic Participation_Serious Games and Spatial Capacity Building.pdfPeer-reviewed author version485.82 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.