Authors: Ina Šuklje Erjavec, Vita Žlender
In relation to the Digital Co-Creation Index – a tool to assess, measure and compare digital co-creation initiatives, a conceptual framework was elaborated to convey the penetration of ICT into public spaces. The criteria are structured according to three aspects: spatial quality aspects, user-related aspects, and technological aspects (Figure 1).
SPATIAL QUALITY ASPECTS
The approach to evaluating these aspects is grounded on basic principles of researching, understanding and designing public spaces developed by theorists and practitioners such as W.H. Whyte, J. Gehl, S. Carr and others. Specifically, the criteria, indicators and tools from the Project for Public Spaces “The Place Diagram” (Project for Public Spaces, 2009) and Jan Gehl’s “12 Urban Quality Criteria” (2017) were examined more profoundly.
SPATIAL QUALITY ASPECTS
The approach to evaluating these aspects is grounded on basic principles of researching, understanding and designing public spaces developed by theorists and practitioners such as W.H. Whyte, J. Gehl, S. Carr and others. Specifically, the criteria, indicators and tools from the Project for Public Spaces “The Place Diagram” (Project for Public Spaces, 2009) and Jan Gehl’s “12 Urban Quality Criteria” (2017) were examined more profoundly. In addition, we took into consideration the outcomes of the CyberParks Project and evaluated the performance of the C3Places POS Quality Index (C3Places, 2019) for the Living Labs assessment that we adapted to the current context of POS, with its digital transformation in mind. The main spatial quality aspects which include additional dimensions relevant for ICT penetration into POS, are defined as:
- Accessibility and linkages – Legibility, Navigation, Convenience for movement, Interlinking, Level of physical, social and digital accessibility.
- Place-related safety – Vandalism, Traffic, Injuries, Environmental safety (monitoring).
- Image & Quality of place attributes – Attractiveness, Personalisation and individual creation possibilities, Adaptability, Monitoring, Environmental quality and Ecological sustainability.
- Uses and activities – Communication and education possibilities, Access to information, Sociability, Research possibilities, Playfulness, Variety, Responsiveness, Service provision, Health and wellbeing.
To define criteria for these aspects, our guiding question was: Which characteristics of ICT are needed to satisfy use and successful co-creation experiences? As basis for development of criteria the Social Responsiveness Index and the Digital Inclusiveness Index were used, plus a sub-indices of Digital Co-Creation Index (C3Places, 2019) and literature review of existing classifications and criteria of ICT features to enable satisfactory user experience. We considered criteria for methods and approaches selection from “Participedia” (n.d.) and the work of Kaplan & Haenlein (2014), who focused on collaborative projects, such as one on ICT tools, grouping them along two dimensions: type of knowledge that is created within a collaborative project, and mutual independence of individual contributions. We define user related aspects as:
- Interactivity – User’s engagement along with the device/ media/ application used, its type of interaction, degree of interaction and type of experience
- Content manipulation and management – How is it provided and what is user supply?
- Usability – Ease of use, respect for privacy, saving work for future use, customization potential, possibility of choice
- User-related safety – security and privacy assurance technology (protection of personal data, anonymity of ideas, etc.) and social resilience
The guiding question for the technological aspects was: How can digital technology support quality of place and the way the place is used and developed? The main issues to define are:
- Technical requirements regarding software, hardware and network communication, and their installation: is there a need for the internet, are any specific operational systems required, i.e. electricity, speakers, etc.?
- From the time-related point of view: is the ICT tool functioning permanently or temporarily, continuously or intermittently?
- From the point of view of functioning place: is the ICT tool static, located in the POS, portable, to be used in POS, or remotely accessible to be used for distant POS-related activities?
On this basis, we have systemised types of ICT tools and their supporting devices in three main categories which describe where the tool is installed in relation to the open space and how an ICT tool interacts with the user. The subtypes of tools are defined according to POS, user-related functions and specific characteristics. Thus, the developed framework for classifying digital tools for co-creation is addressed in the next section.
- Šuklje Erjavec, I. & Žlender, V. (2020). Categorization of digital tools for co-creation of public open spaces. Key aspects and possibilities. Planning Practice and Research (165-183). In Smaniotto Costa, C., Mačiulienė, M., Menezes, M. & Goličnik Marušić, B. (Eds.). Co-Creation of Public Open Places. Practice – Reflection – Learning. C3Places Project. Lisbon: Lusófona University Press. https://doi.org/10.24140/2020-sct-vol.4-2.1.
- C3Places. (2019). Methodological Framework for LIVING LABS in European Cities. Available athttps://c3places.eu/outcomes.
- Gehl, J. (2017). Twelve Urban Quality Criteria. Available at https://gehlinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TWELVE-QUALITY-CRITERIA.pdf
- Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2014). Collaborative projects (social media application): About Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Business Horizons, 57(5), 617–626. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.05.004.
- Participedia. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 March 2019.
- PPS – Project for Public Spaces. (2009). What Makes a Successful Place? Retrieved 10 June 2019. Available at https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat.