Social Sustainability Through Digital Tools for Participatory Public Space Design

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES: URBAN RESILIENCE Editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 by İKSAD publishing house All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Institution of Economic Development and Social Researches (The Licence Number of Publicator: 2014/31220) TÜRKİYE TR: +90 342 606 06 75 USA: +1 631 685 0 853 E mail: [email protected] www.iksadyayinevi.com It is responsibility of the author to abide by the publishing ethics rules. Iksad Publications – 2025© Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience ISBN: 978-625-378-337-2 Cover Design: Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Ankara / Türkiye Size = 16x24 cm PREFACE Dear Professors and Colleagues, We are pleased bring to life that Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience, which was published as an e-book by IKSAD Publishing House with the editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU and Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ. This book project, entitled “Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience,” aims to address sustainability-oriented approaches to urban resilience from theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives. The volume seeks to establish a multi-layered platform of discussion, ranging from the scale of individual buildings to the entirety of the urban fabric. Within this framework, it welcomes contributions from scholars and researchers working in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, environmental engineering, and related disciplines. With the valuable contributions of our chapter authors working in the professional disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, city and regional planning, urban design and sustainability, we have completed Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience book study has been completed with 24 book chapters. We would like to thank you, our esteemed authors, for their contributions to the preparation of the book. We would also like to thank the editorial board and IKSAD Publishing House. We wish to continue this process we have started in the coming years. In addition, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Atila GÜL, the book coordinator of IKSAD Publishing House, for his guidance and support throughout the publication process. We hope that our book ‘Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience’ will be helpful to the readers. Best regards. 15.10.2025 EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ AUTHORS The authors were listed in alphabetical order Alper ÇABUK Ayça GÜLTEN Ayşe ÖZYETGİN ALTUN Ayşe Özge ŞİMŞEK SOYSAL Ayşegül TANRIVERDİ KAYA Demet EROL Deniz DEMİRARSLAN Ebru Vesile ÖCALIR Eda ŞENTÜRK Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK Emine BAYDAN Esra KESKİN Feran AŞUR Feyza Sena ŞENOCAK Filiz KARAKUŞ Furkan AKDEMİR Gencay ÇUBUK Gülşah BİLGE ÖZTÜRK Halil DUYMUŞ Hamza ALTAŞ Hande AKARCA İnci OLGUN Kemal Mert ÇUBUKÇU Kumru ÇILGIN Mehmet Akif IRMAK Mehmet Emin DAŞ Mehtap ÖZENEN KAVLAK Merve ALICI AKA Mesut GÜZEL Muhammed Akif AÇIKGÖZ Muhammed Emir GÖRAL Murat YEŞİL Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ Pervin YEŞİL Rabia Nurefsan ACIKGOZ Sedef ŞENDOĞDU Seher Simay KUŞOĞLU Serim DİNÇ Sevilay YILDIZ Sinem SEYHAN Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN Şuheda ALTUNOK Temuçin Göktürk SEYHAN Tuba Nur OLĞUN Tuna BATUHAN Ufuk Teoman AKSOY Yusuf Eminoğlu REVIEWER LIST The authors were listed in alphabetical order Aslıhan TIRNAKÇI Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Atila GÜL Süleyman Demirel University Ayşe Kalaycı ÖNAÇ İzmir Katip Çelebi University Bige ŞİMŞEK İLHAN İstanbul Medipol University Burcu YILMAZEL Eskişehir Technical University Eda KOÇAK Siirt University Ekrem BAHADIR Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Elif KUTAY KARAÇOR İstanbul Technical University Hakan ARSLAN Ondokuz Mayıs University Hilal TURGUT Karadeniz Technical University Meliha AKLIBAŞINDA Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Murat AKTEN Süleyman Demirel University Nihan Sümeyye GÜNDOĞDU Atlas University Okan Murat DEDE Amasya University Ömer Lütfü ÇORBACI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Selcen Nur Erikci Çelik Beykoz University Sibel AKTEN Isparta Unıversıty Of Applıed Scıences Sinem ÖZDEDE Pamukkale University Şeyma ŞENGÜR Ordu University Turgut KALAY Kütahya Dumlupınar University Tendü Hilal GÖKTUĞ Aydın Adnan Menderes University 545 1. Introduction Today, rapidly increasing urbanization necessitates the re-evaluation of public spaces not only in terms of their physical life but also in relation to social sustainability policies such as social solidarity, cooperation, and inclusiveness (United Nations, 2015). In fact, the critical role of such components in a democratic and sustainable city can be seen more clearly in examples where the design and planning encompass different social segments is comprehensive (Arnstein, 1969). Nevertheless, traditional methods often fail to fully integrate achieve the expected effect due to time and cost constraints (Innes & Booher, 2004). In recent years, digital technologies have significantly transformed this . Tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), social media, augmented reality (AR), online surveys, and participatory digital mapping enable diverse stakeholders to participate more easily and directly in spatial decision-making processes (Nurminen et al., 2024; Tappert et al., 2024). Numerous studies published between 2015 and 2025 demonstrate that digital participation methods positively contribute to design quality, increase user satisfaction, and strengthen social inclusion. This will examine the function of these tools in the context of social sustainability and focus on their potential impact in practice. 1.1.Purpose of the Study Within the framework of social sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) worldwide, the participation of urban individuals in decision-making and design processes related to their living environment is becoming increasingly important. In this context, the primary objective of this study is to examine how digital participation 546 methods are applied in the design of urban public spaces, evaluate the effectiveness of these methods, and contribute to participatory design approaches that prioritize social sustainability. To this end, trends, focal points, and challenges encountered in national and international studies published between 2015 and 2025 were examined. The data obtained through a repetitive and thematic screening process was classified under the and authors, year, scope, and method, and presented in tabular form, thereby proposing a comprehensive framework that could serve as a resource for future studies. 1.2.Importance of the Study With the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalization processes in urban life have accelerated, and at the same time, the importance of open and accessible public spaces in terms of social solidarity, mental health, and spatial justice has become more apparent. This transformation has led to a redefinition of the relationship between urban individuals and public spaces; in particular, the question of how participation in spatial decision-making processes can be supported through digital tools has begun to be discussed more extensively in the context of social sustainability. This study systematically examines how digital participation methods are integrated into public space design, highlighting existing gaps in the literature and evaluating current trends, application patterns, and challenges in a holistic approach. This assessment, which points to the possibility of a more inclusive, transparent, and interaction-based design process by leveraging the potential of digital tools, not only contributes to theoretical knowledge production but also generates insights for local governments, design professionals, and policymakers. 547 1.3. General Information 1.3.1. Participation – Concepts of Participation The concepts of participation and engagement are closely linked to the democratization of social decision-making processes and have their origins in the agora tradition of Ancient Greece(Habermas, 2004). Conceptually, participation refers to the direct involvement of individuals or communities in administrative or spatial processes, while participatory participation is seen as an approach that defines the implementation of this process through planned, inclusive, and egalitarian mechanisms (Sanoff, 2000).In this context, Arnstein's (1969) “ladder of participation” model provides a groundbreaking framework for questioning the quality of participation by presenting a hierarchy ranging from superficial forms of participation to stages where decision-making power is genuinely transferred to citizens. Today, it is increasingly clear that participation is not only a democratic right but also a cornerstone of social sustainability, as social sustainability is based on the principle of meaningful participation of individuals in decision-making processes, alongside the establishment of social justice, for the long-term well-being of communities (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015). In this context, increasing the scope and accessibility of participation is of critical importance for achieving social sustainability goals. Therefore, with the development of digital technologies, participatory processes have become independent of time and place; Online platforms, interactive maps, digital survey tools, and social media-based applications have enabled broader and more diverse user groups to be included in the process, thereby facilitating 548 the emergence of new forms of participation that support social sustainability (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015). 1.3.2.Participation in Planning and Design The concept of participation in planning and design disciplines has gained importance throughout history, particularly with the emergence of social inequalities and spatial injustices in cities. In the early 20th century, Patrick Geddes emphasized that the public should not merely be observers but active participants in urban planning, and he proposed the establishment of public forums to enable local governments to work in collaboration with the public (Turner, 1978, cited in Baba, 2009). Geddes' approach represents a significant turning point in modern planning theory, aiming to transform the public from a passive role into a representable and influential actor. Although these ideas first emerged in England, practices related to public participation in urban decision-making processes began to appear in various local government examples in the United States in the 1870s (Wulz, 1985). With the rise of social awareness in the 1960s, user participation in planning and urban design processes began to take concrete form through practical examples; this period marked a threshold where participation moved from the level of discourse to the practical level (Sanoff, 2006). Particularly with the 1968 Paris student movement, the rise of social demands based on freedom, equality, and peace in Europe paved the way for participatory approaches to be discussed more strongly not only in urban planning but also in all areas of social life (Yoldaş, 2012). This process revealed that design is not only a technical activity but also a tool for social consensus and representation. 549 1.3.3. Integration of Digital Technologies into Participatory Design Processes The use of digital technologies in participatory design processes is not a new phenomenon, but rather the product of a development process that dates back to the early 1990s. During this period, geographic information systems and digital mapping technologies, particularly through approaches such as Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS), began to be used to involve the public in spatial planning processes (Sieber, 2006). With the spread of the internet in the 2000s, web-based surveys, online forums, and interactive maps strengthened the digital dimension of participation (Kingston et al., 2000). However, these digitalization efforts were long limited due to technical limitations and low digital literacy. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed the situation; digital technologies have become indispensable tools not only in individual living spaces but also in public decision-making and spatial design processes. This development has been a significant turning point that has accelerated the digital transformation process in the field. In this period where physical interactions are limited, digital participation methods have become both more diverse and more effective. Consequently, different digital tools that facilitate individual participation have become more widely used. For example, online survey and voting systems enable rapid and data-driven feedback from large audiences; PPGIS-based mapping techniques allow users to directly transfer spatial data about their environment into the digital environment (Simon, 2024). In addition, interactive digital platforms and collaborative design tools enable users to contribute directly to idea generation, while participatory 550 methods such as social media applications, gamification techniques, and digital storytelling are effective in involving young people and those who actively use technology in the process. The widespread use of these tools demonstrates that digitalization is not merely a technical transformation but also a structural change that makes public participation more inclusive, diverse, and sustainable (De Siqueira et al., 2022). 2. Material and Method Within the scope of the research, publications including articles, book chapters, master’s, and doctoral were retrieved from the Google Scholar, Academia, YÖK Thesis, Web of Science, SpringerLink, and Semantic Scholar databases. A systematic literature review was conducted with the aim of classifying the studies according to their year of publication, scope, and research methods. First, plans were made to develop the research objective, research question, keyword list, and criteria for inclusion and exclusion of articles. Within the framework of the inclusion criteria, publications written in English and accessible online were preferred. The search was conducted by searching titles and existing article abstracts using the query phrase ((“Use of digital tools in participatory design of public spaces”)). Through a preliminary evaluation based on the abstracts, those not suitable for the scope of the research were excluded, and the publications were classified according to the specified criteria and tabulated. The distribution of publications by year, field of study, and publication type is presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 below. 551 According to the data, there were 5 publications in 2025, 5 in 2024, 10 in 2023, 4 in 2022, 3 in 2021, 2 in 2020, 3 in 2019, 2 in 2018, 2 in 2017, 2 in 2016, and 2 in 2015, totaling 40 publications (Table 1). Table 1. Distribution of Publications by Year (Author, 2025) The distribution of publications according to their fields of study is shown in Table 2. According to the data, 13 studies were examined in the field of Urban Design, 11 in Architecture, 10 in Urban Planning, and 6 in Sustainable Development and Environmental Studies (Table 2). Table 2. Distribution of Publications by Field of Study (Author, 2025) According to Table 3, 30 articles, 3 master's theses, 2 doctoral theses, and 5 book chapters were examined (Table 3). Year Of Publication Number Of Publications Year Of Publication Number Of Publications 2025 5 2019 3 2024 5 2018 2 2023 10 2017 2 2022 4 2016 2 2021 3 2015 2 2020 2 TOTAL 40 Field of study Number Of Publications Urban Design 13 Architecture 11 Urban Planning 10 Sustainable Development and Environmental Studies 6 552 Table 3. Distribution by Publication Type (Author, 2025) 3. Findings and Discussion In the literature review, not only the distribution of the studies examined by year and discipline was analyzed, but also their content depth, methodological diversity, and thematic focus points were comprehensively analyzed. During this analysis process, criteria such as how digital participation tools are used in the context of public space design, which participation strategies are adopted, and the extent to which access to user profiles is provided were taken into consideration. Thus, the contribution of digital tools to participatory design processes that prioritize social sustainability was evaluated in both qualitative and methodological dimensions. In this regard, the types of methods used in the studies, their content scope, and publication details are presented in a systematic table. A portion of the content and methodological findings of the publications is provided in Table 5. In the “Method” section of the table, the types of digital tools used in participatory public space design in the studies examined are indicated with letter codes to create a clear and comparable structure. These codes indicate how the relevant technologies were used in the design process and enable the interpretation of the levels of digital participation in the studies. The explanations of the codes are provided below: Type Of Publication Number Of Publications Article 30 Master's Thesis 3 Doctoral Thesis 2 Book Section 5 553 Method Section Letter Codes: AR: Augmented Reality 3D: 3D Visualization AI : Artificial Intelligence E-: E-Participation, Online Participation VR: Virtual Reality Y : Software Use W: Social Media, Websites Table 5. Literature Review on the Use of Digital Tools in Participatory Design of Public Spaces (Author, 2025) Author/Year Study Scale Digital Methods Used Brief Description Quan, SJ ve Lee, S. (2025). Street/Park VR / W Use of a digital platform that integrates ChatGPT-based dialogues and generative design tools Fessler, Flora, et al(2024). Public Open Space / Square 3D / E / W Integrated use of digital tools such as online surveys, map-based platforms, pedestrian simulations, and 3D visualization Marshall, Stephen, et al(2024). Neighborhood Scale 3D / E / Y / W Examining the implementation of an experimental online participatory platform in the regeneration of a residential area in London Ng, P., et al. (2023). Settlement / Site Scale 3D Gamification in decision-making processes for the planning of public facilities in highdensity public housing in Hong Kong Singh, Ajit Christmann, Gabriela. (2020). City Scale E / 3D The contribution of Berlin residents' digitized and visualized communicative actions to the social construction of urban spaces is being investigated. Alvarado Vazquez et al. (2023). Neighborhood Scale E / W In Latin America, research is being conducted on how information and communication technologies (ICT) can support social participation in the planning, design, and maintenance of public spaces. 554 M. Shareef, O. S., & Galal Ahmed, K. (2024) Building Scale 3D / E / VR In social housing design, integrating users' opinions and needs into the process for semi-public and shared use areas through digital participation tools. Drechsel, M., et al. (2023) Neighborhood Scale 3D / E / W Using the example of the Ehringsdorf district in Germany, digital participation tools mobilize the public and encourage cocreation.süreçlerine entegre edilmesi Timmerman, R., et al. (2019). Street/Park 3D / E / W The contribution of digital participation tools to socially sustainable urban design was examined in the renovation of a series of courtyards associated with social housing blocks. Guridi, J. A., et al. (2025) Park Scale Aİ / 3D The study examines the impact of image-generating artificial intelligence (IGAI) on the co-design of public parks by translating public demands into design features. Bouzguenda, I., Fava, N. ve Alalouch, C. (2021) Neighborhood Scale 3D / W 3D Digital Planning Tools and Their Potential to Enhance Community Participation Sou, K., Shiokawa, H., Yoh, K., & Doi, K. (2021) Street Scale Aİ / E / W It presents an evaluation model based on human–AI collaboration to enhance participation in street design. Smaniotto Costa, C., et al. (2017) Park Scale Y/ W A new digital tool, WAY Cyberparks, is introduced and discussed to enhance the understanding of the relationship between users and social practices. Hilmer, L. (2024) City Scale AR / VR The impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) on participatory planning is examined during a workshop conducted for an urban public space in Hamburg. Geropanta, V., et al. (2022) City Scale Y / W An Examination of the BIT-Based Digital Platform Her City in Promoting Women's Participation in Urban Public Space Redesign 561 enable both the improvement of design standards and the creation of more equitable and functional public spaces. In this context, it is expected that participatory processes will be strengthened and public spaces will become more responsive to the needs of society in the future, alongside technological developments. Additionally, for countries where digital participation tools are used to a limited extent or where such tools are rarely employed (Figure 1), the following recommendations are provided to contribute to the widespread adoption of digital participation applications: ➢ The systematic integration of digital participation tools into urban design and planning processes should be encouraged. In this context, local governments and relevant institutions can organize training programs to increase digital literacy. ➢ In public projects, hybrid participation models (face-to-face + digital) should be developed to enable users to participate in the process through digital tools. ➢ The effectiveness of digital tools should be continuously evaluated in terms of social representation, data security, and accessibility. ➢ At the academic level, more quantitative and qualitative research should be encouraged to examine the effects of digital participation tools on different geographical, socioeconomic, and cultural groups. 562 Acknowledgements and Information Note This study was produced as part of a master's thesis conducted at the Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Education, Düzce University. All data used in this study were obtained from open access academic databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, SpringerLink, etc.). This article has been prepared in accordance with national and international research and publication ethics rules. Since it does not involve an application requiring ethical committee approval, no ethical committee decision has been obtained. Author Contribution and Conflict of Interest Declaration Information This study was conducted under the academic supervision of Dr. Hande Akarca as part of a master's thesis process. The literature review, analyses, text writing, and preparation of visual content were carried out by the first author, Elif Kübra Öztürk. The author has no conflict of interest with any person, institution, or organization. 563 References Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. Alvarado Vazquez, S., Madureira, A. M., Ostermann, F. O., & Pfeffer, K. (2023). The use of ICTs to Support social participation in the planning, design and maintenance of public spaces in Latin America. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 12(6), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12060237. Baba, E. C. (2009). Küreselleşme sürecinde yüksek yapılaşmanın kullanıcı–çevre ilişkisi bağlamında irdelenmesi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Graduate School of Science, Istanbul, Turkey. Bouzguenda, I., Fava, N., & Alalouch, C. (2022). Would 3D digital participatory planning improve social sustainability in smart cities? An empirical evaluation study in less-advantaged areas. Journal of Urban Technology, 29(3), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2021.1900772. De Siqueira, G., Malaj, S., & Hamdani, M. (2022). Digitalization, participation and ınteraction: Towards more ınclusive tools in urban design—a literature review. Sustainability, 14(8), 4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084514. Deon, L. F. N., Isele, P. C., & Mussi, A. Q. (2021). Codesign and digital technologies: Including the child in the playground design process in a pocket. In XXV International Conference of the Iberoamerican Society of Digital Graphics (pp. 1321–1332). São Paulo: Blucher. https://doi.org/10.5151/sigradi2021-94. Drechsel, M., Förster, N., Berger, D., Schubert, G., & Petzold, F. (2023). Mobilizing publics: Reconsidering digital design as a catalyst in cocreation processes. In Proceedings of the 41st Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe 2023) (Vol. 1, pp. 671–680). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2023.1.671. Fessler, F., Reinwald, F., Weichselbaumer, R., Wentz, J., & GebetsroitherGeringer, E. (2024). Digitally Supported participation processes and 564 tools to promote gender-responsive public spaces. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 13(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.340392. Guridi, J. A., Cheyre, C., Goula, M., Santo, D., Humphreys, L., Souras, A., & Shankar, A. (2025). Image generative AI to design public spaces: A reflection of how AI could improve co-design of public parks. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 6(1), Article 7, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3656588. Geropanta, V. & Cornelio-Marí, E. M. (2022). Inclusiveness and participation in the design of public spaces: Her city and the challenge of the post-pandemic scenario. International Journal of EPlanning Research (IJEPR), 11(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.309380. Habermas, J. (2004). Kamusal Alan. In Meral Özbek (Ed.), İstanbul: Hil Yayınları. Hilmer, L. (2024). Beyond urban challenges – Virtual reality tools in participatory design processes. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2024: Exploratory Papers and Workshops (Vol. 2, pp. 81–86). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3661455.3669874. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., & Turton, I. (2000). Web-based public participation geographical information systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01989715(99)00049-6. Marshall, S., Farndon, D., Hudson-Smith, A., Kourniotis, A., & Karadimitriou, N. (2024). Urban design and planning participation in the digital age: Lessons from an Experimental Online Platform. Smart Cities, 7(1), 615-632. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7010025. Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. Wiley. Ng, P., Li, Y., Zhu, S., Xu, B., & van Ameijde, J. (2023). Digital common(s): The role of digital gamification in participatory design 565 for the planning of high-density housing estates. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.1062336. Nurminen, V., Rossi, S., Rinne, T., & Kyttä, M. (2024). How has digital participatory mapping influenced urban planning: Views from nine planning cases from Finland. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 112, Article 102152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102152. Quan, S. J., & Lee, S. (2025). Enhancing participatory planning with ChatGPT-assisted planning support systems: A hypothetical case study inSeoul. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 29(1), 89– 122. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2025.2462823. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. John Wiley & Sons. Sanoff, H. (2006). Multiple views of participatory design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 1(2), 57–69. Shareef, O. S. M., & Ahmed, K. G. (2024). Design with, not for, local community: Utilizing e-participation tools in the design of socially sustainable vertical Emirati public housing. Buildings, 14(7), 2235. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072235. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic ınformation systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x. Simon, D. (2024). Public Participation GIS for healthy urban planning: A scoping review. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 13(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.358620. Singh, A., & Christmann, G. (2020). Citizen participation in digitised environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial knowledge in urban planning. Urban Planning, 5(2), 7183. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i2.3030. Smaniotto Costa, C., Bahillo Martínez, A., Álvarez, F.J., Šuklje Erjavec, I., Menezes, M., Pallares-Barbera, M. (2017). Digital Tools for Capturing User’s Needs on Urban Open Spaces: Drawing Lessons from Cyberparks Project. In: Certomà, C., Dyer, M., Pocatilu, L., Rizzi, F. (eds) Citizen Empowerment and Innovation in the Data- 566 Rich City. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47904-0_11. Sou, K., Shiokawa, H., Yoh, K., & Doi, K. (2021). Street Design for hedonistic sustainability through AI and human co-operative evaluation. Sustainability, 13(16), 9066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169066. Tappert, S., Mehan, A., Tuominen, P., & Varga, Z. (2024). Citizen participation, digital agency, and urban development (Editorial). Urban Planning, 9, Article 7810. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7810. Timmerman, R., et al. (2019). Towards socially sustainable urban design: Analysing actor–area relations linking micro-morphology and micro-democracy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 14(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V14-N1-20-30. Turner, J. F. C. (1978). Housing in three dimensions: Terms of reference for the housing question redefined. World Development, 6(9–10), 1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(78)90068-2. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. Wulz, F. (1985). The concept of participation. In Design Coalition Team (Ed.), Volume One: Proceedings of The International Design Participation Conference (pp. 94–104). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Yoldaş Kırlangıç, Ö. (2012). Bir yöntem olarak mimari tasarımda “kullanıcı katılımı” dar gelirliler için konut üretiminde (Master’s thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Graduate School of Science). Yükseköğretim Kurulu National Thesis Center. 567 Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: Architecture / Karabuk University License: Architecture / Karabuk University Degree: Licence Doctorate: - Professional experiences: Prıvate Sector 3 Years Experıence Assist. Prof. Dr. Hande AKARCA E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: Architecture / Istanbul Technical University License: Architecture / Istanbul Technical University Degree: Built Resource Studies / Oxford Brookes University Doctorate: Architectural Design Problems / Mimar Sinan Fine Arts U. Professional experiences: Asistant Proffesor / Duzce University