2.1. Citizen participation: Outcomes vs. outputs

Citizen participation in the public sector is a nuanced process encompassing various factors, including the temporal and stage-dependent nature of participation, such as co-commissioning, co-design, co-delivery and co-assessment (Nabatchi, Sancino & Sicilia Reference Nabatchi, Sancino and Sicilia2017). While there is a latent willingness among citizens to be involved, self-interest and constrained perspectives in individuals are limiting factors for effective collaboration (Bovaird & Loeffler Reference Bovaird and Loeffler2013). Especially within co-creation, the distribution of different capacities and skills among stakeholders requires the balancing of participative democracy and professional expertise, avoiding reinforcing existing inequalities (Steen, Brandsen & Verschuere Reference Steen, Brandsen and Verschuere2018).

While co-creation can generate large amounts of data for designers and researchers to learn from, there is a neglected emphasis on how much participants can and have taken away from the reciprocal process, especially in an increasingly technological decision-making environment. During digital transformation, Namioka & Schuler (Reference Namioka and Schuler1990) pointed out how we often end up with systems that are difficult for users to master, poorly suited for their tasks and perceived by them as threatening. On the other hand, workshop sessions can be long and recursive, the complexity and scale of the design problem involving numerous parties towards technically and output-oriented design decisions (Costa et al. Reference Costa, Mačiulienė, Menezes and Marušić2019). These can contribute to individual experiences as a participant being overlooked, leading to decreased engagement.

To capture the collective experience and iteratively enhance engagement methods, Tarr, Gonzalez-Polledo & Cornish (Reference Tarr, Gonzalez-Polledo and Cornish2018) recommended to document and study the experiential dimensions of co-creation workshops. Workshops can be designed in various ways as a means to promote genuine participation, with the common feature of arranging activities within a limited duration for participants with a shared agenda; the groups are often kept small to allow everyone’s attention and the opportunity to be heard (Ørngreen & Levinsen Reference Ørngreen and Levinsen2017). Calling for a more engaged understanding of design workshops, Rosner et al. (Reference Rosner, Kawas, Li, Tilly and Sung2016) considered how social alignments may be animated or resisted through the activities designed, by observing collaborative processes and their relationships to the workshop outcomes.

Scholars have distinguished different types of results that can be generated from an activity: outputs, outcomes and impacts. Output is the direct product of an activity, such as the co-created public space designs (Belcher & Halliwell Reference Belcher and Halliwell2021). Whereas outcome is a term often used in social science to denote what comes out of a social process, for instance, the participatory experience (Bhattacherjee Reference Bhattacherjee2012). On the other hand, impact differs from the previous two terms by its broader and longer term effects, for instance, how the workshops have affected the overall change in participants’ experiences (Harding Reference Harding2014). By studying co-creation processes through the lens of participants, this study hopes to contribute to enhancing community engagement in the design field, specifically balancing output-driven approaches with outcome-driven objectives.

With a participant-centric focus, literature was reviewed to look for outcome variables that can help evaluate co-creation processes, with the following guiding questions:

• • To enhance community engagement, what are the key elements of gamification to consider?

• • What are the indicators of participants’ experience and the extent of knowledge gained?

• • What factors contribute to successful digital urban co-creation?

Literature was collected based on keywords – digital gamification and serious games, participants’ experience and crowd learning, urban co-creation and digitalisation. Around 50 articles were selected based on their relevance to the guiding questions. Variables or key concepts that were present in most of the literature were then used to structure the evaluation framework.

2.2. Digital gamification and serious games

Gamification is an emerging approach to foster engagement, motivation, civic learning and enjoyment in citizen participation (Hassan & Hamari Reference Hassan and Hamari2020). Games are systems in which players engage in artificial, rule-bounded activities and interactions to achieve goals; it is a participatory form of recreation that is often socially significant, adding playfulness to establish rapport (Frissen, Mul & Raessens Reference Frissen, Mul and Raessens2015). Gamification is the application of gaming elements in non-gaming contexts so as to enhance the experience, motivation and further behavioural outcomes (Cechella, Montezano & Mello Reference Cechella, Montezano and Mello2018).

Playing games results in a basic expertise of the game, which can be seen as serious and powerful learning tools, as participants are spontaneously drawn into the game; digital gaming helps participants to be fully immersed in the playful experience, learning rules through interaction, rather than passive instructions (Adams Reference Adams2014). Positive learning effects have been well documented in empirical research, both with respect to children and adult players; for instance, de Andrade, Poplin & Sousa de Sena (Reference de Andrade, Poplin and Sousa de Sena2020) demonstrated how children were fast learners with lucid abilities of urban design, which can motivate other social actors. This highlights gaming as a participatory form of learning that can be applied to facilitate co-creation projects, in which participants co-learn design knowledge and digital skills.

As playing games is an important part of social and mental development, elements that players find interesting or useful are crucial to promote effective learning (Ravyse et al. Reference Ravyse, Seugnet Blignaut, Leendertz and Woolner2016). Scholars have diverging views over what drives game design. According to Schell (Reference Schell2019), crucial game elements are aesthetics, mechanics, technology and story. The MDA (mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics) framework introduced by Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek (Reference Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek2004) included sub-factors of sensation, fantasy, narrative, fellowship, discovery, expression and submission. Building on this, Dormans (Reference Dormans2012) saw games as the engineering of emergence governed by mission, space, rules, representation and realism. Also, games can integrate motivational factors for learning, like leader boards, badges and rewards (da Rocha Seixas, Gomes & de Melo Filho Reference da Rocha Seixas, Gomes and de Melo Filho2016).

In the realm of serious games, learning through participation is seen as interactive practices for players to acquire knowledge on the social, political and economic realities of a community, allowing a deep and sustained understanding of real-world issues (Stevens Reference Stevens2007). Serious digital games can assist stakeholders to be more expressive via joyful activities like storytelling, walking, moving, sketching and drawing in an online collaborative environment (Poplin Reference Poplin2012). This new model of learning may change the future of public education. However, enhancing participants’ experience while balancing learning objectives requires more than tools engineering but careful community engagement design.

2.3. Participants experience and crowd learning

In community engagement, participatory experience can assist in the building of communities that serve as the primary platform for articulating aspirations, desires and solidarities, assuming roles and sharing responsibilities, while implementing tangible and practical actions (Adell et al. Reference Adell, Bendix, Bortolotto and Tauschek2015). To enable and promote a transformative experience for participants, it is crucial to mobilise community knowledge, building capacities of integrated problem-solving and critical thinking (Tremblay & Jayme Reference Tremblay and Jayme2015; Hakio & Mattelmäki Reference Hakio and Mattelmäki2019). In co-creation, design thinking methods can help build these key competencies by making design knowledge accessible – gain insights into user needs, challenge assumptions, redefine problems, develop innovative solutions through prototyping and testing (Davis, Docherty & Dowling Reference Davis, Docherty and Dowling2016).

Learning from user experience (UX) research, learning enhancement and knowledge acquisition can be beneficial to facilitate a ‘creative turn’ in participatory experience (de Bruin & Jelinčić Reference de Bruin and Jelinčić2016). Such crowd learning entails the collective sharing of experiences between individuals as a method of acquiring and developing new information and skills as a group. Kalisz (Reference Kalisz2016) demonstrated how crowd learning is essential for leveraging the knowledge, potential and expertise of individuals to effectively respond to challenges or tackle pressing issues. As such, crowd learning should precede cooperation for more informed participation.

To assess the quality of learning, methods have long been developed in the field of education to effectively arrange resources (Chang & Lehman Reference Chang and Lehman2002; Woo Reference Woo2014; Lee & Hao Reference Lee and Hao2015). For instance, ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction) is a descriptive model for diagnosing problems of learning motivation (Huang et al. Reference Huang, Diefes-Dux, Imbrie, Daku and Kallimani2004; Driscoll Reference Driscoll2005). Building on this, Keller (Reference Keller2010) suggested a macro model of ARCS to measure learners’ performance (effort, abilities, knowledge and skills) and satisfaction (equity, consequences and cognitive evaluation).

As a form of active learning, co-creation activities possess motivational factors including collaboration, fulfilment, fun and playfulness (Minoi et al. Reference Minoi, Mohamad, Arnab, Phoa, Morini, Beaufoy, Lim and Clarke2019). In urban co-creation, Franz, Tausz & Thiel (Reference Franz, Tausz and Thiel2015) suggested that the activity design should help participants to understand value in community building, community commitment, diverse perspectives of stakeholders and social innovation. On the other hand, participants should be exposed to new digital techniques and local resources, engage in mutual cultural exchanges and learn to prototype through an in-depth understanding of local context and challenges (Wang, Bryan-Kinns & Ji Reference Wang, Bryan-Kinns and Ji2016). Especially in spatial design, co-creation activities should help participants to understand the complexity of design problems and the implications of their collective decisions (Marušić & Erjavec Reference Marušic, Erjavec, Smaniotto, Mačiuliene, Menezes and Goličnik2020). To sustain longer-term impact, co-creation should aim to build participants’ capacity and confidence to engage and contribute, and for members to appreciate themselves as a collective (Bradley & Mahmoud Reference Bradley and Mahmoud2024).

To bring about a transformative and personalised experience, equity, reflexivity, reciprocity and mutuality are crucial (Pérez Jolles et al. Reference Pérez Jolles, Willging, Stadnick, Crable, Lengnick-Hall, Hawkins and Aarons2022). Participation should bring about criticality and collectivity via self-reflective inquiry, data sharing, collection and action, empowering participants through the consideration of lived experiences (Baum, MacDougall & Smith Reference Baum, MacDougall and Smith2006).

In a study comparing participatory and conventional methods in design teaching, Shanthi Priya et al. (Reference Shanthi Priya, Shabitha and Radhakrishnan2020) found that community engagement approaches can improve students’ understanding of sites, concepts, design parameters, project needs and confidence in design decisions. The study demystified the initial stages of design for students through direct engagement with end-users, which enhanced students’ design performance over time. In a classroom setting, Phillips & Napan (Reference Phillips and Napan2016) suggested that the learning space should be structured as a place for dialogic processes, guided by principles of mutual regard, so as to cultivate participatory experience that can be leveraged when engaging local communities. These learning models can be adopted in co-creation to increase engagement, while promoting knowledge and skill sharing.

However, Ali & Liem (Reference Ali, Liem, Weber, Husung, Cantamessa, Cascini, Marjanovic and Montagna2015) problematized the relationship between participants’ experience and co-creation outputs, as there is a lack of specific methods and tools that effectively translate experiences into tangible design objects, such as forms, textures and colours. Also, studies have questioned the rhetoric of ‘participation is always good’ by measuring participants’ disposition change, participation quality, commitment level, thinking modes and future engagement potential; from angles of social justice, participation does not equate to inclusion and is subject to individual experiences of the process – whether participants are being encouraged to be creative and foster changes (Ferreira, Azevedo & Menezes Reference Ferreira, Azevedo and Menezes2012; Leino & Puumala Reference Leino and Puumala2020).

2.4. Urban co-creation and digitalisation

In urban co-creation, inclusivity is a key principle that ensures all voices are heard and considered in a collective decision-making process, prioritising consensus-building amongst varying needs to address complex issues, during which trade-offs can be a difficult task, nonetheless, necessary (Löffler Reference Löffler2021). It is also important to create public and social values among participants as intangible outcomes, including network building and a change in mind-set (Haug & Mergel Reference Haug and Mergel2021). However, participants’ experience is a subjective quality criteria and can be influenced by their satisfaction with the co-created output, the perception of relationships built and whether they feel themselves as part of the majority with salience being agreed with and valued (Brandsen et al. Reference Brandsen, Verschuere and Steen2018).

To promote cooperation, compromises can be an important factor of concern, which may facilitate satisfactory progress and advancement (Costa Reference Costa2021). However, it is imperative to persist in the pursuit of consensus through compelling arguments based on pertinent values and comprehensive knowledge of relevant facts (Brewer Reference Brewer2018). Consensus generated from means of tolerance, civility, reciprocal obligations and mutual concessions is the highest-valued outcome of any cooperation (van Parijs Reference Parijs2012).

One study looked at cooperative urban design as a form of citizen science and debunked some of the negative assumptions, which include the supposed lack of participants’ creativity, macroscopic understanding, high-level processing and digitally mediated communication abilities. In fact, researchers have found that digitalisation can bring more responsive feedback, pleasure and joy that could encourage and educate citizens to get involved in community decisions (Poplin Reference Poplin2014). For instance, digital games can offer three-dimensional affective experiences, visualising words, meanings and signs, which enable participants to share opinions, stimulate imagination and express creativity (Ermi & Mäyrä Reference Ermi and Mäyrä2005).

Furthermore, immersive environments can help to build spatial consensus among stakeholders – take the case of Quick Urban Analysis Kit (QUA-kit) as an example, a digital tool for participatory urban analysis with an accessible interface and geometrical play-pieces to crowdsource citizen’s ‘image of the city’ (Gordon & Schirra Reference Gordon and Schirra2011). When utilising these virtual environments, Silcock et al. (Reference Silcock, Schnabel, Moleta and Brown2021) stressed on aspects of interaction, facilitation and communication to help participants understand 2D and 3D information, so as to participate in the design process proactively. All in all, digitalisation can create new affordances in co-creation through design empowerment, design learning, design conversations, design consultation and cooperative design research (Pak & Verbeke Reference Pak and Verbeke2014).

2.5. Key variables in measuring co-creation processes

Table 1 summarised key variables that were present in most of the literature. These variables were grouped under four key themes – game design, participatory experience, learning outcome and co-creation results. Amongst which, the first four under each category were used to structure the evaluation framework.

Table 1.

Indicators to measure the qualities of a co-creation process.

4.1. Workshop design

The goal of the workshops was to understand issues surrounding local public spaces and ways in which we can design for placemaking. A series of seven co-creation workshops took place, to which participants reflected on and co-created the central plaza using the tailored VR game. Based on recent co-creation efforts of local organisations in Hong Kong, such as JCDISI (2023), HKCSS (2023) and Commchest (2023), it has been observed that one of the most common workshop design is the standalone practice-based approach with approximately 2–3 h of duration, following the design-thinking method – a consistent structure of empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test:

• • Introduction (20 min) – PowerPoint presentation to introduce concepts of placemaking and community building, the estate’s history and facilities and guiding questions based on previous research by a local organisation (JCDISI 2021):

  • ○ How to implement spatial integration to promote more community exchanges?

  • ○ What is age-neutral design to you?

  • ○ What kind of intergenerational facilities would your community need?

  • ○ How to make use of unique spatial characteristics of the local context?

  • ○ Is it possible to utilise available technology for innovative community space?

  • ○ How to achieve user-centric management in the estate?

• • Empathy (20 min) – Persona exercises and participants’ journey maps were conducted.

• • Define (20 min) – Participants worked in teams to conduct spatial analysis. Photographs of the plaza, playground, entrance and elevated walkway in JMC were provided to identify potentials and limitations of existing designs.

• • Warm-up VR activity (20 min) – Participants competed in teams to navigate the VR environment to get used to the controls.

• • Ideation (20 min) – Participants identified design goals, community activities and facilities.

• • Prototype (60 min) – Participants visualised their ideas in the digital sandbox game. Team members collaborated to divide tasks, including:

  • ○ Sketch a plan and accordingly.

  • ○ Choose from the provided 3D asset kit and place them in the VR environment.

  • ○ If their desired asset cannot be found, participants can:

    • ▪ search for 3D assets online or

    • ▪ draw the item, take a photo and place it in VR as a proxy.

• • Review using VR headsets (throughout the prototyping process) – Participants were invited to review their design from street views using VR headsets anytime; however, due to health and safety concerns, they can only be immersed in the headset 5 min at a time. Each team would share one headset and they would take turns, while the other team members made changes to the design via the computer.

• • Presentation (20 min) – Each team presented their designs using the VR environments, engaging other teams in discussions and receiving comments.

Considering the convenience of older adult participants, the workshops were largely organised within the estate in a local NGO centre – H.K.F.Y.G. Jockey Club Jat Min Youth S.P.O.T. (HKFYG) – or the closest university in the same district (CUHK). Due to venue availability constraints, two of the workshops had to take place in the Construction Industry Council (CiC) and Central Ferry Pier (CFP), respectively. Both digital and physical tools were used in most workshops, except the first – the initial test only used physical tools, including worksheets, maps, sticky notes and hand drawings (Table 2).

Table 2.

Organisational details of each workshop event.

4.2. Participant backgrounds

Participants were recruited through the aforementioned NGO and university, involving end-users of JMC public spaces, local residents, social workers who provide public services in JMC, secondary school students studying in the area and university design students. A total of 75 participants were invited (Figure 4), of which ~40% were male and ~60% were female. The age distribution is made up of ~20% youth and ~20% older adults. Participant’s computer skills were assessed using an e-questionnaire before the workshop, with a self-reported rating on a Likert scale of 1–5 – ‘I have experience with VR or video game’:

Figure 4.

Distribution of participants’ gender, age and role.

Each workshop had an equal mix of stakeholder and age groups, evenly distributed to work in teams of 4–5. Based on their background and previous experiences, each team would have at least a member of designer, resident, social worker and a person with sufficient computer skills.

4.3. Gamification using VR environments

The co-creation workshops were facilitated using the tailored digital sandbox game (Figure 5). Sandbox games are a genre of video game that offers an expansive 3D world for players to freely explore and interact (UN-Habitat 2021). In our game, participants enjoyed a considerable level of autonomy to mould the space according to their preferences through adding 3D assets. There were no predetermined game rules in terms of what the participants can or cannot do; however, they were guided by the set of placemaking questions (section 4.1).

Figure 5.

Screenshots of the designed digital sandbox game with 3D assets of public space furniture.

The VR environment was designed with a digital twin of the central plaza, published using a web-based VR platform (Mozilla Hubs), which enabled multiplayer online collaboration. The 3D scene was 1:1, and the site was approximately 500 m². It was customised to have pastel tones to create a more abstract and interactive atmosphere. A set of 3D assets with public space furniture were designed for participants to engage with (Ng et al. Reference Ng, Li, Zhu, Van Ameijde, Gardner, Herr, Wang, Toshiki and Khan2024).

The digital game underwent enhancements after each phase (α versions) with the aim of enhancing the design output, while minor issues from participants’ feedback were addressed following each workshop (β versions). The former involved internal testing that primarily focused on assessing the game’s functionality and usability, generally involving design students and conducted at the university in a controlled and straightforward environment. The latter were tested in the targeted context with real-world settings, placing greater emphasis on reliability and overall user experience, involving end-users and other stakeholders (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Photo documentations of the co-creation workshops.

Game version 2α was the first version used for testing and includes modelling the site environment, preparing the triggers, 3D asset kit and media frames. After the first test, it was realised that the 3D scene got too heavy when participants added more assets simultaneously. During 2β, minor troubleshooting took place to optimise each asset under 500 kb. During phase 2, it was observed that participants easily got lost in the VR environment when the sky was blocked by other elements. Thus, version 2.5α turned all of the media frames invisible to maintain a clear line-of-sight around the scene. In 3α, the 3D asset kit had been expanded according to the collected community preferences from previous workshops. Subsequently, 3β optimised each of the assets to streamline connectivity.

4.4. Survey design and analysis

The evaluation aimed to generate insights based on changes in participants’ experience on the four dimensions. The baseline and endline questionnaires were designed to be symmetrical (Appendix A); a Likert scale of 1–5 was used (Figure 7). All questionnaires were electronic and the response rate averaged >85% (Appendix B). When analysing the data, the median was used to represent the score of each level. Then, the mean was calculated to average the score of each dimension. Finally, differences between baseline and endline results were calculated for each dimension and each level of each workshop (Appendix C).

Figure 7.

A sample of an endline question.

6.1. The outcomes – Participants experiences

The workshops exhibited favourable outcomes in participants’ experiences, on a scale of 1–5; all dimensions scored 3/+, 66.7% scored 4 or above, only two levels (‘mechanics’ and ‘needs’) occasionally scored below 3 (Appendix C), with the exception of WS2.1 – the first workshop that deployed the VR game (Figure 9). Overall, the scoring trend line is positive over the seven workshops, indicating consistent improvements and the effectiveness of interventions between phases. Despite initial score drops with each version upgrade, beta testing led to score improvements after troubleshooting.

Figure 9.

Changes in participants’ rating and digital game version of each workshop.

Digital gaming motivates engagement even if participants find it difficult to control and navigate. The lowest performance was ‘game design’, achieving only 5% increase (Table 3). Although ‘mechanics’ and ‘space’ experienced ~10–15% decrease, ‘dynamics’ performed well (+45.7%) and achieved full scores in several workshops. It showed that the game process was interesting and increased participants’ engagement with others despite the technical challenges, but there is a need to improve skill-sharing of gaming controls and the design of VR environments.

Table 3.

Changes in participants’ responses on the four dimensions.

Enclosed spaces in a VR environment are suitable for more experienced participants; also, drag-and-drop is easier to engage with than grab-and-place. From the endline survey, participants of WS2.2 and WS3.3 were quite happy about the overall game design but had diverging views over how easy it was to orient themselves in VR environments. Both workshops had high percentages of local residents who are familiar with the site; however, participants of the former thought it was difficult to find direction in the virtual world. They were working with game version 2β, to which lines-of-sight were sometimes blocked by media frames. Whereas participants of the latter used 2.5α, with the three residential buildings and the sky clearly visible all around the scene, which helped them to orient themselves. On the other hand, participants of the former often had to grab 3D assets from one location and place them in another, whereas participants of the latter were being instructed to always drag-and-drop assets into the scene, minimising the need to navigate.

Disparities in digital competencies did not significantly impact participants’ experiences. Although WS2.1 had the highest self-reported baseline computer skills (median = 4.5/5), they also reported the least satisfactory workshop experience. Conversely, WS.2 and WS3.2 both showed strong computer skills but received differing workshop experience ratings. In contrast, WS3.3, despite reporting the lowest computer skill proficiency, received the highest overall workshop rating.

Intergenerational interaction, particularly those involving a higher percentage of older adults, can strongly enhance the overall co-creation experience. The highest overall rating was WS2.2 and WS3.3 (~90%), both had more older-adult residents than other workshops. These participants generally considered themselves quite extroverted, enjoyed helping others and engaging the community. The lowest was WS2.1 and WS3.1 (~70%); all participants were design students who were knowledgeable in urban design, but little to no experience in community engagement. They were not recruited on a voluntary basis – the workshop was conducted as part of their course activity.

Co-creation is inherently a learning process, regardless of workshop quality. All dimensions achieved positive changes, with ‘learning outcome’ having the biggest and most significant ~30% increase – even though the quality of workshops varied, all participants agreed that there was much to take away from the process. This demonstrates how co-creation is first and foremost a form of learning; therefore, it should be designed with active learning objectives and methods.

All in all, most participants were satisfied with the workshop experience. When being asked the question ‘the activity is interesting and attractive, if there are similar events in the future I will participate again and recommend friends to participate’, 100% of participants of WS2.3, WS3.2 and WS3.3 agreed, followed by WS1 and WS3.1 (81% and 87%, respectively).

The participatory experience scoring readily increases as more stakeholder groups are included. The endline survey showed that participatory experience performed the best (averaged 4.31 for all workshops). However, when examining potential trends among various stakeholder groups, we delve into the recent three workshops, each progressively incorporating more stakeholders:

• • WS3.1 involved solely designers.

• • WS3.2 integrated youth residents and social workers.

• • WS3.3 encompassed a diverse mix of all groups.

Visualising the data with evaluative compasses, participants’ ratings for each level were clearly depicted, where a larger area indicated a higher rating (Figure 10). A pattern has emerged – as the number of stakeholder groups increased, the overall ratings for ‘reflection’, ‘creativity’, ‘sustainability’, ‘community’ and ‘satisfaction’ also rose. Despite all workshops utilising the same game version 3, the last workshop stood out with ‘dynamics’ and ‘expressiveness’ achieving top scores – participants found the gameplay more fun and engaging, facilitating self-expression and consideration of their needs.

Figure 10.

Participants’ evaluation of workshops on a Likert scale of 1–5, 0 = no data.

6.2. The outputs – Public space design

Considering WS3.2 and WS3.3 employed identical game versions but varied in participant composition (with/without older adults), with the latter achieving higher participants scoring, we shift our focus to their co-creation outputs – the public space designs. They comprised 3D scenes and hand-drawn sketches, annotated with group presentation contents (Figures 11 and 12). The designs were similar in their spatial program planning, which highlighted potential common needs of local communities – both designs featured zones for exercise, playgrounds, commercial activities and performances, with a central grass lawn as the key element. However, they varied in the community activities proposed and their organisation logics in response to the guiding questions (Section 4.2).

Figure 11.

Public space co-creation outputs of WS3.2.

Figure 12.

Public space co-creation outputs of WS3.3.

Spatial integration to promote community exchanges – Participants of 3.2 incorporated two community support spaces that are trendy among the younger generation, including a book-sharing club and a community expression area, both intended to be spaces for proactive interactions. Whereas 3.3 had a water feature of a massage pool, where residents, especially older adults, can relax and chat, while engaging in passive exercises. On the other hand, while both designs proposed commercial areas, the focuses were different. Participants of 3.2 designed a weekend market to build up the community economy, with local stalls to enhance the quality of life for residents, whereas 3.3 proposed to have shops for daily grocery and affordable goods for the convenience of local communities, particularly those with lower physical mobility. The former focused on entertainment and economic development and the latter highlights inclusivity and accessibility.

Age-neutral design and intergenerational facilities – It can be observed that 3.2 designed spaces for different age groups, centring on recreational activities that are largely periodic, but 3.3 focused on practical uses to suit daily intergenerational needs. In 3.2, participants proposed areas for Tai Chi, elderly gym and Cantonese opera, whereas 3.3 proposed a pharmacy, supermarket, community canteen and so on. They also proposed to turn part of the grass lawn into a community farm, so older adults can have a reason to spend some time outdoors every day. Further, more emphasis was put on aligning the daily activities of children and older adults, including play and exercise equipment, showcasing a borderless design to promote spontaneous dialogue between neighbours.

Considering the unique spatial characteristics of local context – Both designs had emphasis on enriching community activities but demonstrated different logics towards how to utilise the spatial characters of the site. Take the side nearest to the main bus stop as an example, 3.2 put a performance stage to attract more foot traffic, whereas 3.3 put the commercial area to be benefitted from the existing human flow. Another example is the area next to the residential tower on the west, which is generally shaded from extreme sunlight in the summer, 3.2 put the booking-sharing space so people can spend time reading comfortably and quietly, whereas 3.3 situated the performance stage there to shield performers and audience from the weather.

Technology utilisation for innovative community space and user-centric management in the estate – Proposal for technology adoption is limited; however, 3.2 utilised audio-visual systems for movie nights and performances, whereas 3.3 had no specific mention of such. Interestingly, both designs showed distinct management styles. As mentioned, 3.2 dedicated a small area for community expression to collect residents’ voices to be considered by management, whereas 3.3 proposed a common stewardship system of the community farms through drawing lots. This demonstrates the various ideas towards what constitutes equity and fairness by participants of different social groups.

Comparing the co-creation outputs with the existing design of the local public space (Figure 13), it can be observed that the latter attempts to reserve a vegetation oasis for the central plaza to counteract the high-density context and provide a pleasant green feature for residents to look at, especially from the surrounding tall residential towers. However, residents are being restricted to access the grass lawn so as to protect the vegetation. The co-creation outputs demonstrated that, as much as residents would like to keep the grass lawn, they wish to have more community activities in the area, fully utilising empty spaces in the estate to diversify spatial programs.

Figure 13.

The existing site’s large grass lawn restricts access for residents.

Overall, although WS3.3 had more stakeholder groups involved and achieved a higher overall rating in participants’ experience, both workshops resulted in unique public space designs that considered varying community needs (Table 4). It demonstrated how involving a different composition of participants may impact both the outcome and outputs of co-creation workshops. Organisers should carefully plan the composition to achieve different design objectives.

Table 4.

A summary of how the design differs from WS3.2 and WS3.3.