3D visualisations for communicative urban and landscape planning: What systematic mapping of academic literature can tell us of their potential?

dc.contributor.authorEilola Salla
dc.contributor.authorJaalama Kaisa
dc.contributor.authorKangassalo Petri
dc.contributor.authorNummi Pilvi
dc.contributor.authorStaffans Aija
dc.contributor.authorFagerholm Nora
dc.contributor.organizationfi=maantiede|en=Geography |
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.17647764921
dc.converis.publication-id179106125
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/179106125
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-28T03:06:23Z
dc.date.available2025-08-28T03:06:23Z
dc.description.abstract<p>Public participation and collaboration supported by the opportunities that digital technologies offer are prolific themes in urban and landscape planning. In the past two decades, there has been a growing interest in the ca- pacity of 3D visualisations to support citizen and stakeholder engagement in communicative planning processes. However, the technical advances of 3D visualisations still outstrip the current understanding of their benefits, appropriate uses and usability in practical planning contexts. There are no reviews or systematic mapping of literature, to our knowledge, that investigate the available evidence on the usability of particular 3D visual- isations or that document the scope and gaps in current research on 3D applications in communicative planning. To answer this need we conducted a systematic mapping of academic literature reporting recent case studies of 3D visualisations that have been utilised or developed for communicative urban and landscape planning con- texts. We follow established guidelines for systematic reviews and used Scopus and Web of Science as primary electronic databases. Altogether, we reviewed 46 case studies globally. Our findings highlight the heterogeneity of planning contexts and purposes, terminology and technological 3D solutions. Moreover, the scarcity of real - life planning cases and robust and well-documented usability evaluations are evident in the literature. We discuss limitations of the existing academic literature for evidence-based understanding and suggest a common framework for reporting in the field of participatory and collaborative 3D visualisations to enable more rigorous and systematic evaluation of the usability and benefits of these technologies in urban and landscape planning.<br></p>
dc.identifier.eissn1872-6062
dc.identifier.jour-issn0169-2046
dc.identifier.olddbid210207
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/193234
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/50967
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104716
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2023040434879
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorEilola, Salla
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorFagerholm, Nora
dc.okm.discipline1171 Geosciencesen_GB
dc.okm.discipline519 Social and economic geographyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline1171 Geotieteetfi_FI
dc.okm.discipline519 Yhteiskuntamaantiede, talousmaantiedefi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationinternational co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA2 Scientific Article
dc.publisherELSEVIER
dc.publisher.countryNetherlandsen_GB
dc.publisher.countryAlankomaatfi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeNL
dc.relation.articlenumber104716
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104716
dc.relation.ispartofjournalLandscape and Urban Planning
dc.relation.volume234
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/193234
dc.title3D visualisations for communicative urban and landscape planning: What systematic mapping of academic literature can tell us of their potential?
dc.year.issued2023

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
1-s2.0-S016920462300035X-main.pdf
Size:
4.47 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format