Journal Pre-proof

Augmented reality for supporting geo-spatial planning: An open access

review

Reint Jansen, Frida Ruiz Mendoza, William Hurst

PII: S2468-502X(23)00036-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visinf.2023.07.002
Reference: VISINF 180

To appear in: Visual Informatics

Received date : 28 June 2022

Revised date : 15 June 2023
Accepted date : 1 July 2023

Please cite this article as: R. Jansen, F.R. Mendoza and W. Hurst, Augmented reality for supporting
geo-spatial planning: An open access review. Visual Informatics (2023), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visinf.2023.07.002.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Zhejiang University and Zhejiang
University Press Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 Journal Pre-proof

Title page

Augmented Reality for Supporting Geo-Spatial Planning: An Open

of
Access

Reint Jansena and Frida Ruiz Mendozaa*, and William Hurstb

pro
a
Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University & Research, GAIA
Building (101), P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands, reint.jansen@wur.nl,
frida.ruizmendoza@wur.nl

b
Information Technology Group, Wageningen University & Research, Leeuwenborch, Hollandseweg 1, 6706
KN Wageningen, The Netherlands, will.hurst@wur.nl

*Corresponding author re-

lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof
Manuscript Click here to view linked References

Augmented Reality for Supporting Geo-Spatial Planning: An Open Access

Review
Augmented reality is gaining traction across many domains. One such being participation

of
within geo-spatial planning projects. The interactive and three-dimensional nature of
augmented reality is suitably placed to cater for a higher quality of communication and
information exchange in planning processes. Thus, this research provides an overview of the
use of AR in planning processes, specifically regarding the participation aspect, through an
open-access systematic literature review, for which the investigation identifies 35 articles
concerning the current state-of-the-art of augmented reality in planning. Findings indicate the

pro
rather limited use of augmented reality in the overall planning process due to technical
limitations. Nonetheless, it shows to be a useful technology where it allows for a higher user
engagement and a clearer understanding amongst users in planning projects. Additionally, in
participation, the technology offers a motivational solution and creates an overall higher
acceptance and awareness of the plan, making the participants more engaged and
represented in the planning process.

Keywords: Augmented Reality; Systematic Literature Review, Participation, Planning, Geo-

visualization

1 INTRODUCTION
re-
The use of augmented reality (AR) has become more prevalent. While the trend was catalysed
by the gaming industry [1] the technology now also has value in other applied fields, such as smart
manufacturing [2], tourism [3] and healthcare [4]. Within research, AR has also demonstrated its
potential for engaging the public with immersive geo-visualizations. For example, presenting the
lP
effects societal issues such as climate change, the rise of the sea level [5] or deforestation [6]. Clearly,
AR has a broad application, and this is also the case within the geo-spatial planning domain.

For example, Fenais et al. [7] investigated how AR can be used to show the locations of
underground utility infrastructures to improve the available information. This can aid the initial
research or assessment of a plannings project. Additionally, Allen et al. [8] demonstrated how the
public can make use of AR technologies to provide feedback on proposed architectural designs. The
rna

latter example indicates that AR has value in the participation aspect of spatial planning. This is also
confirmed by Saßmannshausen et al. [8] and Williams et al. [9], who discussed that in a participation-
based setting, the information and opinions of participants are a valuable addition to any geo-spatial
planning project.

Clearly, communicating the (spatial) knowledge and opinions of the participants is a crucial
factor in the planning process. This is because geo-visualizations are often used as a tool to transfer
spatial knowledge between the involved parties (planners, stakeholders, participants) and are used to
enhance communication on the planning process [10]. Nonetheless, due to the fixed viewpoints, scale,
Jou

and fixed extent of more traditional 2D geo-visualization methods, the communication between the
parties can be (negatively) influenced [11], [12]. AR has demonstrated that the technology can be used
to overcome these limitations by creating a realistic and interactive environment [13]. Specifically, by
allowing the user to interact directly with the environment to establish a clearer understanding of the
impact of the shown changes [14]; ultimately improving the communication between the involved
parties. Further, this improved method of communication can also be significant when accounting for
the increased complexity of planning processes, where planners must account for many different
 Journal Pre-proof

points of views, because of the increasing number of stakeholders and participants [12], [13], as well
as the inclusion of social, economic, and environmental factors [15].

The exact method of how AR can be used in planning processes depends on the phase and
type of participation. In general, (geo-spatial) planning can be explained as a process that consists of

of
different phases to transform the environment according to the requirements and needs of different
factors, such as the market, stakeholders, or participants [16]. The interpretation of those phases
varies greatly depending on the type of project and region. Therefore, in this article, the research
focusses on the four cyclic phases described by McCall and Dunn [17], that can be applied to most
planning processes which involve participation. The phases are as follows: 1) exploration, 2)

pro
assessment, 3) design and problem mitigation, and 4) action. The exploration phase relates to the
investigation of spatial problems and conflicts. This phase is used to provide an overview of the main
process, what problems need to be addressed and how they are going to be addressed (the process).
In the assessment phase, the problems are further investigated to review their impact and priority to
be addressed. Within the design and problem mitigation, potential solutions for the acquired
problems are designed and assessed. Finally, the action phase will realize the project and evaluate the
outcome.

The level of participation ranges from informing to co-deciding, while many articles describe
re-
different levels of participation, this research will use the levels described by Edelenbos et al. in [10]
based on the widely used participation ladder of Arnstein [18]. Namely, 1) inform, 2) consult, 3) give
advice, 4) co-produce and 5) co-decide. Of those levels, the last two can be seen as having a higher
level of interaction, which has become increasingly adopted over recent years [12]. However, those
levels must not be seen as hierarchical, the effectiveness of using a level depends on the kind of
participation [18], [19]. Besides, different planning phases also require the appropriate level of
participation, where Fenais et al. [20] and Allen et al. [21] demonstrate that AR can be used to
lP
supplement those participation levels and planning phases.
rna

Figure 1. Planning Phases and Participation Levels

Further, the classification of the AR role depends on both the planning phase and the level of
participation. For example, in the exploration phase, participants can give advice on reoccurring
Jou

problems by pointing locations on a map using AR. During the design phase, a new building can be
evaluated as shown by Allen et al. [21]. Similarly, AR can also be used to enable the different
participation levels, where it acts as a survey to inform or consult a larger group of participants, or as
a main visualization method in a co-decide participation session. Additionally, AR shows potential to
supplement different problems in the participation projects (see Section 2) including two of the most
reoccurring issues as described by literature. Namely, 1) lack of motivation and 2) lack of inclusiveness,
as demonstrated by Saßmannshausen et al. [8] and Williams et al. [9]. The former presented an AR
 Journal Pre-proof

application that involves the younger public in the participation process. The latter, documents a form
of participation where elderly are able to help design the environment. Both examples showcase the
use of AR to increase inclusiveness. Comparably, Gnat et al. [22] show AR can gamify the decision
making in planning processes, potentially increasing the motivation to participate. Demonstrating AR
potential to enhance motivation.

of
Clearly, the use of AR in the participation process demonstrates it to be a valuable tool in the
participation sessions, with the ability to aid different issues in the ever-increasing complexity of those
processes. While the use of geo-visualizations in the participation process is already a well-covered
subject in existing research, as explored by a literature study from Bloemmen et al. [23], there is a lack

pro
of reviews regarding the role AR has within the participation process. Consequently, this investigation
focuses on providing an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the recent use of AR in planning
processes and research how those can apply to participation. The focus of this investigation is on the
AR technology from 2010-2022. This age range is selected because of the rapidly improving technology
and the increased accessibility of AR (i.e. many modern phones include AR functionality), making it an
ideal tool to reach larger audiences in the participation process, in contrast to Virtual Reality (VR).

Thus, the overarching objective of this investigation is to investigate how AR is used in geo-
spatial planning processes and how it can enhance the participation process. Through a systematic
re-
literature review (SLR) about the current state of AR, the main challenges for integrating AR into the
participation process are considered. To conduct the investigation, the following two research
questions are considered: 1) What is the current state-of-the-art of AR technologies in the geo-spatial
planning domain within open access literature? and 2) Based on the open access findings, how can AR
address the main issues in the participation in geo-spatial planning processes?

The remainder of this article is as a follows; Section 2 provides a background on multiple

lP
challenges in the participation process; Section 3 outlines the SLR methodology with results; and
findings from the SLR presented in Section 4; the paper is concluded in Section 5.

2 BACKGROUND
As previously outlined, at the time of writing this article, the participation process has become
more complex. This has resulted in varying challenges that cannot always be accounted for due to the
rna

limited time and resources of many planning projects. To research how AR can help overcome such
challenges, an overview of common problems in participation, based on three overarching studies
[24]–[26], is provided in this section.

Table 1. Participation Challenges

Theme Problem
Administration Problem identification; Consensus building; Temporal effectiveness; Design;
Innovation
Economic Economic situation; Economic data; Economic resources
Jou

Efficiency and effectiveness Costs; Outcomes; Impact

Ethical Transparency; Legitimacy; Trust; Fairness; Inclusiveness; Equity; Justice
Legislative Legal framework; Legal expertise; Legislation roles; Institutional requirements
Political Power relationships; Manipulation; Marginalization; Legitimation; Lobbying
Socioeconomic Socioeconomic characteristics; Socioeconomic variables
Stakeholders and social Influence; Living context; Needs, preferences, and priorities; Characteristics;
Motivation
Technology Technological solutions/tools; User-friendliness of applications; Digital divide
 Journal Pre-proof

Marzouki et al. [24] performed an SLR review on issues in the stakeholder participation
process, resulting in 9 different themes. Namely administration, economic, efficiency and
effectiveness, ethical, legislative, political, socioeconomic, stakeholders and social, and technology
[24]. Baker et al. [25] conclude different points that need to be included in the participation process
to make it effective, Including, Inclusiveness, Expectation, Transparency, Open outcomes, Effective

of
process, Democratic, Balance views, Effective use of resources, Knowledge, Thinking differently,
Balancing speed and inclusivity [25]. The underlying problems of these points are in line with the issues
mentioned by Marzouki et al. [24]. Irvin and Stansbury [26] also outline different disadvantages of
participation. Starting with the costs. Organizing a participation process can take more resources in
contrast to relying only on one vision of the planner. Facilitating an additional participation process is

pro
not always worth it since it can lead to unusable conclusions. However, Irvin & Stansbury [26] do note
that the social value of participation can outweigh this effect. A second point is that not all participants
might be able to represent the complete diversity of citizens. Thirdly, citizens do not tend to show a
willingness to give up free time to participate. They prefer to leave it to representatives or other
participants that share their ideas. These three points also contribute to the fourth point, namely the
lack of representation.

Participant sessions are mostly attended by one specific social-economic group, creating less
diversity in the outcomes usually only suited for that specific group. The lack of authority is another
re-
mentioned disadvantage in the research of Irvin and Stansbury [26], here the risk is that the decision
of participants might not always be implemented or taken into consideration. This causes a negative
view of participation processes, making it seem that they are not worth the time. Another point is the
power of wrong decisions, where more powerful citizens might have the upper hand in the process,
forcing less popular decisions by the wider public. The last point is selfishness. Here, it is concerned
that the participant might make decisions for their own good, caring less about the real goal of the
planning project.
lP
In summary, related works clearly highlight significant challenges within the planning
processes, for which AR offers and ideal solution. Thus, this article investigates open-access journal
articles relating to the use of AR within planning processes. The methodology for the SLR is defined in
the following chapter.
rna

3 METHODOLOGY
This research involves an open access SLR. The SLR uses the open access publishing model for
scholarly communication as to align with open science developments. While this results in using only
a portion of the available research about AR in planning and participation, other research, such as the
work of Hurst and Hoshang [26] used this approach where the findings were suitable detailed for
supporting the development of a prototype. An open access approach promotes repeatability and
accessibility of the findings presented within the article. The type of literature review that is conducted
in the (open access) SLR is derived from the approach adopted by Kitchenham [27], [28]. The
Jou

procedure is designed to provide scientific evidence for the field of software engineering by
systematically analysing relevant articles [28].

The SLR procedure consists of different phases: 1) planning of the SLR, 2) conducting the SLR,
and 3) reporting the SLR [28]. In the first phase, the need for a review is discussed in Sections 1 and 2,
the research question is defined in Section 1 and a specific search strategy is designed in Section 3.
Thus, the strategy presented in this section contains the search locations (databases or journals), the
search key and search criteria (to systematically search for articles), the study quality assessment, and
 Journal Pre-proof

lastly the data extraction and synthesis strategy. The second phase is the execution of the strategies
defined in the first phase. This also includes a validation strategy of the results, where the quality of
the selected articles is checked using predefined questions. The last phase is the report of the results.

The focus of the first research question, ‘What is the current state-of-the-art of AR

of
technologies in the geo-spatial planning process?’ is to document current research that uses or
analyses AR technologies in the planning domain. Here, the SLR is used to analyse the features and
limitations of the AR technologies in planning mentioned in previous research. The focus of the second
research question, ‘How can AR address the main issues in the exploration phases of the participation
process for urban planning?’, is on the use of AR in participation. The SLR is designed to answer both

pro
of those research questions. As discussed, the SLR focuses on articles published between 2010 and
2022. The inclusion of older articles was considered, as AR has been investigated in research articles
since the late 90’s [29]. However, the evolution of technology within the AR domain is relatively fast-
paced, and prior to 2010 a less stable version of AR was commonplace[30]. Moreover, since 2010 it
became widely feasible to use hand held camera-equipped devices to substitute a conventional
computer mouse, facilitating the functionalities of object sharing, selection, and manipulation of both
2D and 3D data [31].This means that articles older than our selected time period are likely to discuss
strengths and weaknesses which might not apply to the AR technology in its current state.

3.1 Search Strategy

re-
For the search strategy, systematic and manual searches are applied to find the maximum number of
relevant articles. For the systematic search, keywords are used as input for the search key, depending
on the research question of the specific SLR. The extensive applicability of geodata across multiple
disciplines, including spatial planning, has rendered it a commonplace resource within this field [32],
[33]. The more specific nature of both research questions will generally lead to the use of broad search
lP
keys to inquire many articles. Thus, while this paper focuses on geo-spatial research, to expand the
knowledge base, the term spatial (without geo) was employed. Unrelated articles were filtered out
during the SLR procedure. To define this search key, exploratory searches are done to address the
most optimal keywords. To select the relevant articles, certain selection criteria are applied to filter
the results. The selection criteria (SC) are found in Table 2. The main databases that are used in this
systematic search are Scopus, Web of Science (WOS) and Wiley. IEEE, ACM and Wiley were also
rna

included in the search but yielded either no relevant articles or articles already presented within WOS
and Scopus. The general search string used for this SLR is as follows (alters per database):

"Augmented Reality” AND ((Landscape AND (Architecture OR Design OR Planning)) OR (Urban AND
(Architecture OR Design OR Planning)) OR (Spatial AND Planning) OR ((Citizen OR Planning) AND
(Collab* OR Participat* OR Co-Design)))

(1)

The search string includes both the planning and the participation aspect, as well as a wide
Jou

range of terms that are related to the planning or design of an (urban) area. Additionally, a manual
search is conducted to include additional articles. This is done by snowballing the relevant articles
found in the systematic search, thereby including important articles that were not found using the
systematic approach.

The search focuses on open access articles. As previously mentioned, this choice is made to
align with the open science approach. The concept of open science aims to enhance the research by
facilitating more transparency, openness, networking and collaboration [34]. By using open data, this
 Journal Pre-proof

idea of open science is applied to make to process more transparent, and therefore more
reproducible. This is also in line with the open science policy of the European Commission, where two
of the ambitions are the use of FAIR open data (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable
data) and to increase the research integrity and reproducibility of the results [35].

of
The articles that pass the search criteria are stored in an Excel database, with the following
information: Authors; Title; Year; Source title; Volume; Issue; Pages; DOI; Link; Keywords; Article type;
Source; Search type. After this, the articles are read to assess the quality and extract the important
information and data.

pro
Table 2. Selection Criteria
No. Criteria
SC 1 Open access
SC 2 From 2010 to 2022
SC 3 Complete & peer-reviewed & written in English
SC 4 No duplicates
SC 5
SC 6

3.2
re-
Correct use of keywords in the search string.
Applied/theoretical research (no SLRs & surveys)

Quality Assessment
The study quality assessment filters the selected articles based on certain questions. Here,
quality can be understood using the definition by Kitchenham as the extent to which the study
minimizes bias and maximizes internal and external validity [28]. Based on this definition, 6 questions
lP
are created to check the quality of each article (Table 3). The points are given based on how well the
articles can answer the question, with a 1 for yes, a 0.5 for partly, and a 0 for no, with a maximum
score of 6, this scoring is based on a previous SLR of Tummers et al. [36] and Kitchenham [27]. To
objectify the questions as much as possible and to improve the reproducibility of this study, the
scoring system of the questions is described in the Appendix.

Table 3. Quality Assessment

rna

No. Question
Q1 Are the aims of the study clearly stated?
Q2 Are the scope, context, and design of the study clearly defined?
Q3 Is the method well defined for providing reliable results?
Q4 Are the results of the study stated clearly?
Q5 Is AR the main focus of the article?
Q6 Are the credibility, validity, and reliability of the results clearly discussed?
Jou

3.3 Data Extraction

During the quality assessment, the data extraction and synthesis strategy are also executed.
The data extraction strategy involves extracting relevant information that can be used to analyse the
articles. For this review, the following information is extracted from every article: Topic theme (focus,
field) - Technology (Type: markerless, marker, projected; Scale: Table-top, 1-to-1 scaled; Site: In-,
outside; Hardware: Mobile, mounted, etc.; Software: App, Engine, etc.) – Method – Evaluation –
 Journal Pre-proof

Participation (applied, implied, or not used in research) – Planning phase (see Figure 1). Any item that
is not mentioned in the article is answered with NA (not applicable).

The synthesis strategy focuses on listing any features and limitations of AR mentioned in the
article that are a result of the used methodology or evaluation of the used AR technology. During this

of
step, any conclusion about AR is listed as a feature or limitation. Articles that score less than 3 out of
the 6 points are excluded from the SLR.

To validate the quality assessment, 3 randomly selected articles are chosen to be

independently scored. Any notable differences between the scores are discussed to remove any risk
of bias in the findings. For instance, a notable difference of +/- 1 in a specific score meant that the

pro
quality assessment was re-evaluated.

To answer the first research question, the general statistics of the SLR are analysed to
determine the trends of AR in the planning domain (Section 4.1). Secondly, the current state-of-the-
art is described together with the main features and limitations of AR (Section 4.2). Lastly, the
differences in features and limitations between the different uses (deployment types) of AR are
explained (Section 4.3). The second research question is answered by analysing the features and
limitations of AR within articles that used a form of participation (Section 4.4).

4 RESULTS
re-
In this section, the findings will be described. Starting with the general results and trends of
the SLR, followed by describing the state-of-the-art of AR in geo-spatial planning, the difference
between the method on how AR can be used, and the role of AR in the participation aspect of geo-
spatial planning.
lP
4.1 Trends of AR in planning
An initial total of 1360 articles were identified systematically using the search query and prior
to SC1. A further 10 articles were identified with the manual (snowballing) approach. After the
selection and quality criteria, a total of 35 articles were selected as relevant for this study. The
considerable reduction from 1360 to 35 articles can be attributed to the search identifying only open
access articles and the requirement to be planning-related. The use of a broader search string resulted
rna

in the inclusion of a considerable number of articles outside of a planning-related domain due to the
use of similar key words in a different context.

The distributions of the quality assessment (QA) score (ranging from 0 to 6) can be found in
Figure 2A. The articles were evaluated based on 6 questions, where a score of 0, 0.5 or 1 was given
per question according to a rubric found in Appendix 1. 5 articles scored below 3.0 points were
excluded from the results (as displayed in Figure 2A). The total mean score of all articles is 3.85, with
a minimum score of two and a maximum of 5.5. Figure 2B displays the distribution over the year
against the scores, with an expected trend of more articles in the later years and no significant
Jou

correlation between the years and the scores (P(0.9) > 0.05).
 Journal Pre-proof

of
Figure 2. (a) Mean QA Scores, (b) QA Score by Year

pro
The most dominant field is visualization, with a total of 11 articles (Figure 3), ranging from
topics such as the visualization of historical buildings to flood areas. Other well-represented fields
were architecture (8), planning (5), and participation (6).

re-
lP
Figure 3. Article Domains

The fields are quite diverse, yet 11 of the 35 articles focus on planning and participation
specifically. However, the other fields do share functionality with the planning domain, where AR is
used to evaluate or design specific projects. The relation between the amount an article is cited with
the number of terms that the article contributed to the SLR is not significant (P(0.75) > 0.05). Figure 4
displays citations count for the 35 articles.
rna
Jou

Figure 4. Article Citations

4.2 Overview of the state-of-the-art in AR for planning

For the analysis, articles are classified into 5 categories of AR software and hardware
deployment types (AR Type, AR Scale, AR Site, AR Hardware, AR Software) as displayed in Table 4,
 Journal Pre-proof

where an indication of the plannings phase (as described in Figure 1) is provided. Of course, these
categories have further sub-categories; for example, marker and markerless are sub-categories of the
AR Type.

Table 4. Articles Per Category and Articles Per Planning Phase

of
AR Type # AR Scale # AR Site # AR # AR # Planning #
Hardware Software phase
Marker 17 Scaled 25 Outdoor 23 Mobile 26 App 15 Exploration 1
Markerless 19 Table 12 Indoor 14 Mounted 3 Unity 13 Assessment 6

pro
Projected 2 Handheld 3 Other 4 Design 20
Other 2 Action 2
N.A. 2 N.A. 1 N.A. 3 N.A. 1 N.A. 3 N.A. 6

The SLR results indicate that there are diverse methods of deploying AR in geo-spatial planning
related projects. The AR type is defined by the method of projecting visualization in the environment.
Specifically, there are 3 types; marker AR uses a predefined anchor point (e.g., a QR code) to project
a visualization; markerless AR uses the environment or coordinates to project the visualization; and
the projected type uses a hologram on a special table. The AR scale is divided between a scaled
re-
method and a table method. The scaled method shows a 1:1 scaled visualization in the real
environment while the table method shows the visualization on a flat surface, most likely on a smaller
scale. The AR Site where the AR is primarily used, outdoors, or indoors. Lastly, the AR hardware and
software define the device that the article used to run the AR application and the software that was
used to build the AR application, with app being a pre-existing application that enables the AR
functionality.
lP
Figure 5A indicates that, within the selected articles, markerless AR is a preferred option for
outdoors applications. One example is given by Panou et al. [37], who shows an application for cultural
heritage in which users could see buildings of the past through markerless AR. Similarly, Skov et al.
[38] developed an application that showed the potential visualizations of new buildings and their
surroundings. In both examples, markerless AR enriched the user experience. In contrast, marker AR
is more restricted and therefore less optimal method to view virtual objects outdoors as demonstrated
rna

by Fonseca et al. [7] in which an existing AR applications to visualize artwork outdoors was evaluated,
challenges like viewing range and marker visibility within the camera constrained users ability to view
the 3D object in the wider perspective of the environment which defeats the purpose of a 1:1 scale
visualization. Figure 5B indicates that when adopting a marker-based AR, most articles undertook the
development work in Unity game engine. In total, 26 out of the 35 articles used a mobile phone as AR
hardware, showing how a mobile phone is a useful tool for providing AR functionalities in the planning
process. For example, Saßmannshausen et al. [8] uses an AR application to enable users to help design
their environment by placing down virtual objects through a mobile phone. Additionally mobile
phones enable participatory sensing, where individuals use them to interact with their surroundings,
Jou

creating the idea of a smart city [39]; therefore, their dominance in the AR domain is expected.
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
(A) (B)
Figure 5. Type (marker, markerless, projected, varied) linked to (A) site (indoor, outdoor, both) and
(B) software (app, unity, other).

Overall, a clear trend in the articles were positive remarks regarding the use of AR in geo-spatial
planning related processes. According to this SLR, the most outlined strengths of AR are the
engagement (n=14), collaboration (n=16), understanding (n=11), and useful (n=12). Engagement is
about how the interactivity of AR can create a spatial sense [40] and how AR can create a form of
re-
immersion when using realistic data in the real environment (as discussed by Shih and Chen [41]),
both points indicating why AR is mostly used in the design process. A further trend was the strength
of AR for collaboration, referring to the ability to better communicate ideas to AR being used as a main
communication tool in co-design sessions [42]–[44].

The understanding strength of AR shows how the technology can help users to understand the
visualization. The ability to view the visualization from different angles [45], and the ability to see the
lP
changes in the environment when interacting with it [40] show how AR can help to improve the
understanding of the visualization. AR is seen as a useful tool in planning processes. AR can better
engage professionals in the planning process [46] and can create a new form a new method of
participation, increasing the interest in the planning process [8]. The understanding and engagement
strengths of AR can also help to create more acceptance (n=4) and awareness (n=2) of the project
plan, where visualized changes showed in AR makes it easier for the user to accept the changes [38]
or are more aware of planning projects in general [7].
rna

Additionally, the results of this SLR show that AR is seen as intuitive (n=8) and motivating (n=4)
and allows for gamification (n=2). Here, intuitive is about how AR is straightforward to learn [8] and
to use [37], increasing the overall user experience and motivation when using AR, for example Fonseca
et al. [7] mentioned how the intuitiveness and gamification of AR increased the motivation of users to
participate in a planning project. Nonetheless, while gamification is seen as positive concept in AR [7],
[37], the research on the usefulness of gamification in AR is still limited according to Imottesjo et al.
[47].
Jou

The SLR shows mixed results about the accessibility (n=8) of AR, where it is mentioned as a
feature (n=4) and a weakness (n=4). The increasing accessibility shows how AR can be a feasible tool
to use due to the growing number of devices that support the AR technology [48], [49], however, it is
also mentioned that is not true for all user groups [49], especially for older adults, for whom it still is
perceived as a complex technology [47]. Additionally, it is also seen as a new (n=7) technology, this
makes it still less developed in some cases [49] and makes it harder for planners to incorporate AR in
planning projects [50]. This in-term also makes it a less accessible technology to use in geo-spatial
planning projects.
 Journal Pre-proof

The inaccuracy (n=14) and hardware (n=13) are the two most mentioned weaknesses of the use
of AR in planning according to the results of the SLR. The AR technology is still inaccurate when
projecting visualizations. Many of the articles experienced tracking issues and placing inaccuracies,
amongst others by [8], [37], [38]. The hardware that is used to project the AR visualization also shows
to be a limiting factor. For example, the screen of a mobile phone can limit the experience due to its

of
smaller size [7], [51]. Other issues such as high calibration times [52] and limited processing power
[37]were also mentioned. Both the inaccuracy and hardware limitations can have a negative impact
on the overall user experience, potentially making the AR visualization less believable [38].

Other weaknesses of AR are also mostly technical, such as the interaction (n=6), compatibility

pro
(n=4), and the reliance (n=3) issues mentioned in the articles. The interaction issues mostly relate to
difficulties interacting with the environment or other users. Skov et al. [38] mentioned how users had
difficulties expressing their ideas, and Tomkins and Lange [48] mentioned that a limited number of
users can work on one AR device, making it harder to use AR with a larger group of people. The
compatibility relates to how well AR can be integrated with other (GIS) applications, making it harder
to use the input of users in AR in other programs [7], [52]. Additionally, the reliance is about issues
encountered when user AR, decreasing the user experience. For example, Fadzli et al. [53] mentioned
how a less reliable internet connection decreased the overall user experience. Additionally, the
visibility of the AR visualization is also a limiting factor, where the environment (n=5) can block the AR
re-
visualization, such as light [54] and other objects [55], and the range (n=3) shows how the quality of
the model decreased over a larger distance, and the limited viewing angle caused by the requirement
of having the marker, or reference points on screen [56].

4.3 Deployment of AR in planning processes

The results show that AR can be deployed in geo-spatial planning processes using different
configurations. The AR type, AR scale and AR site (table 4A) mostly define those different deployment
lP
types, where AR type and AR scale show to be the more defining properties differentiating between
AR deployment types (AR site is more related to the AR type, as can be seen in figure 5A). Figure 7
shows the distribution of different combinations of the AR type and AR scale. Here, markerless AR
together with a scaled visualization is the most used combination (13x). An example of this is the
research of Syahputra et al. [54], where a 1:1 visualization of a virtual house was created to show the
appearance in the environment. Marker AR with a table-top visualization (6x) or a scaled visualization
(5x) are the other two most used deployment types in the planning domain. An example of marker AR
rna

with a table-top visualization is the work of Fadzli et al. [53], where a multiuser design tool for
designing a garden using handheld AR was created.
Jou

Figure 7. Marker-based vs Markerless distribution

 Journal Pre-proof

To understand the core differences between the deployment types, the most differentiating
features, and limitations of AR per category are highlighted in figure 8. The most pronounced
differences between marker and markerless AR are that markerless AR tends to create more
engagement and a bit more understanding and acceptance while marker AR is mostly used for
collaboration purposes and tends to be seen as more useful in the planning process (Figure 8A).

of
Additionally, markerless AR shows to have more hardware related limitations and is overall less
accurate while marker AR is mostly limited by the viewing range (Figure 8C). Secondly, comparing the
AR scale, table-top visualization is more often used for collaboration, is seen as more intuitive and
slightly more engaging than the scaled visualization (Figure 8B). Lastly, scaled visualizations are more
often limited by the environment, range, accuracy, and hardware issues (Figure 8D).

pro
(A)
re- (B)
lP

(C) (D)
Figure 8. Article Key Themes (A) Marker-based and Markerless Features (B) Scaled and Table-based
rna

AR Features (C) Marker-based and Markerless Limitations/Obstacles (D) Scaled, and Table-based AR
Limitations/Obstacles (*A. is acceptance and Env. is environment)

4.4 The role of AR in participation

This sub-section discusses the role AR can have in the participation aspect of geo-spatial
planning processes. In total, 13 of the 35 articles discussed any form of participation or collaboration.
These 13 articles are used to analyze the role of AR in the participation process. The features and
limitations described in the previous section and their application in the participation process are
further explained in the following paragraphs.
Jou

Acceptance and awareness were almost exclusively mentioned in articles using participation
(5 of the 6 total mentions). For example, Cirulis & Brigmanis [57] discussed that the ease of public
integration (created by AR) can help to increase the satisfaction of the public for a project. Further,
regarding the term awareness, Broschart & Ziele [44] highlight that engaging with the AR application
enables the users to form their own opinions. Another term only mentioned in articles that are using
participation is gamification [7], [47]. Here, Fonseca et al. [7] outline that gamification can increase
the motivation and opinion-forming of a user. Additionally, 3 of the 4 articles that mentioned
 Journal Pre-proof

motivation discussed the increased motivation to participate in planning projects using AR [7], [8],
[50]. For example, Goudarznia et al. [50] showed how mainly younger citizens are more willing to join
participation events when using AR technologies and Fonseca et al. [7] indicate that, besides the use
of gamification, using mobile AR tools to visualize different urban features also improves the
motivation of the users.

of
The term intuitive was mentioned 6 out of 8 times in the articles that use participation.
However, these articles only describe the AR application itself as being intuitive, not implicitly relating
it to the participation process. Only Ros et al. [46] discussed that it supports participants who have
relatively little knowledge of the project and application to better understand the project and Afrooz

pro
et al. [52] showed that AR helped understand the project, which made participants able to make better
decisions. The term collaboration is present the most in articles using participation: 11 times of the
total of 18 articles. Seeing how collaboration is a notable aspect of participation, this result is quite
logical.

However, both understanding, and engagement were less present in articles with
participation than without participation. Here, understanding was only addressed in 3 of the 11
collaboration-based articles and engagement 4 of the 14 in participation-related articles. In a
participation setting, the term understanding is seen as the capability of the participant to understand
re-
the planning project, as described by Afrooz et al. [52] and Grassi & Klein [45]. Yet, the engagement
does not differentiate substantially and both the realistic appearance [58] and the interactivity [59]
can also be seen as notable factors in participation.

When comparing the limitations coupled with participation to articles without participation,
the largest differences occur with hardware, inaccuracy, interaction, and compatibility. Hardware and
inaccuracy are discussed fewer times in articles with participation, while interaction and compatibility
lP
are mentioned more in articles with participation (as can be seen in Figure 8A). Saßmannshausen et
al. [8] show that users had difficulties interacting with objects in an AR environment. Regarding the
social interaction, Tomkins & Lange [48] mentioned the limited capacity of the AR device limited the
interaction with a larger amount of people, however, this was solved by using communicating over a
distance. For compatibility, St-Aubin et al. [56] highlight that certain features were not available on
the AR engine that was used and according to Fonseca et al. [7], several 3D objects were not
transferred properly to the AR application. However, most of those issues tend to be more general or
rna

technological, not relating to specifically participation itself.

Jou

(A) (B)
Figure 6. AR and Participation (A) Features and (B) Limitations
 Journal Pre-proof

5 DISCUSSION
The main goal of this study was to research the role of AR in the geo-spatial planning process,
specifically in the participation aspect, based on the strengths and weaknesses of the technology. In
total, 35 articles were reviewed to gather information about the use, features, and limitations of AR

of
in planning. This information was used to analyse the role of AR in the planning process. This section
discusses the main results of the study and compares them to the findings of other literature reviews
about AR. Additionally, the limitations of this study are also discussed.

5.1 The current-state-of the art of AR technologies within open access literature in planning

pro
The use of AR in geo-spatial planning processes can be divided into four categories; 1)
markerless scaled, 2) marker scaled, 3) markerless table-top, and 4) marker table-top. The results
showed that the markerless scaled deployment type was the most often used in planning, followed
by the marker table-top and marker scaled deployment types. The results show that the markerless
scaled deployment type creates in general a better understanding and a higher engagement amongst
users, while the marker table-top deployment type is better for collaboration, is seen as a more useful
tool for planning purposes and while it is a more stable technology regarding the accuracy and
hardware performance, it has a limited viewing range.
re-
Additionally, AR is most dominantly used in the design phase of the planning process. This
indicates that (at the time of writing this article) the use of AR in planning process is still rather limited
in exploration, assessment, and action phases. Additionally, the results also indicate that AR is largely
still in development [60]. The result shows that AR is both innovative and a new technology, where it
is seen as an interesting technology, but its novelty makes it harder to implement in planning projects.
Which is confirmed by the mixed results on the accessibility found in this research which are an
indication that AR is not yet fully developed to be used in planning projects. Furthermore, this can also
lP
be explained by the accuracy, hardware, and other technical issues that were mentioned by many
articles. Nonetheless, the results do show that AR has potential to be useful in the planning process,
also in planning phases outside the design phase. The increased engagement and understanding of
the environment allow planners or participants to better relate to the environment, this can be useful
to, for example, discuss the potential issues or knowledge that need to be explored in the exploration
phase. The use of AR can also improve collaboration, this can be useful for any participation session
regarding any of the planning phases (e.g., the evaluation of the project in the action phase).
rna

5.2 The role of AR in participation as documented in open access literature.

The results show that the role of AR in the participation aspect of geo-spatial planning
processes displays potential for the collaborative aspect, a higher acceptance, awareness, and an
increase in motivation of users. Besides this, the intuitiveness of AR plays an important role in
participation. While it might not directly influence the participation process itself, it is a notable aspect
to make the AR usable and understandable for the users, as explained by Ros et al. [46]. The general
limitations of AR in planning, are also applicable for the participation process. However, the
Jou

interaction and compatibility of AR showed to be mentioned more often as limitation in articles about
participation. Nonetheless, both limitations are minor issues, only mentioned by a couple articles,
showing that those issues can be resolved in the future. This is also true for the more general
limitations, such as the unstable tracking (accuracy) and hardware limitations. Currently, those
limitations can decrease the user experience and accessibility. This makes AR less suitable for
participation, especially regarding the use of AR in this study, where multiple participants need to have
access to AR to provide insights for the earlier stages of the planning process.
 Journal Pre-proof

Without the influence of the mentioned limitations of AR, the features found in this study can
be useful to improve on certain issues in the participation process, as explored in section 2. For
example, the increased awareness of users helps with making the process more transparent and less
influenceable. As Broschart & Ziele [44] discuss, using an AR application to explore the plans helps
users to form their own opinion. The higher acceptance of users makes planners more capable of

of
managing the expectation, a problem mentioned by Baker [25]. With a higher acceptance of the plan,
participants are more likely to adapt their opinions and are more understanding of possible false
expectations. This also ties in with the lack of authority, mentioned by Irvin and Stansbury [26]. Here,
a planner is not capable of including all views of the participant. The increase of motivation to
participate using AR, the intuitiveness of AR and the general increase in accessibility of AR devices (in

pro
the future) are points that make people more likely and willing to participate, addressing the common
issues of the lack of representation and inclusiveness in planning projects. However, as previously
noted, AR is not as accessible yet for some people, mainly elderly, making incorporating those groups
in the participation process more challenging.

5.3 Other Review Articles

Features of AR (such as the usefulness in planning and participation, the collaboration
capabilities, and higher acceptance of the planning project) are also confirmed by a literature review
re-
by Wolf et al. [61] , where the potential of mixed reality (MR) to shift the focus of participation to the
earlier phases of the process is reviewed. Additionally, the overall usefulness of AR in the planning
processes that are described in the SLR is also shown by Suchita and Sujata [62], where they
researched the role of AR in different areas of smart city planning. However, this study showed that
understanding was not a prominent term in participation when using AR. This is in contrast with the
findings of Wolf et al. [61] , where the understanding of the MR visualization was one of the key results
as a factor in participation. A possible explanation for the lower amount of understanding mentions
lP
in participation is the focus on participation for the design phase (e.g., where the user only needs to
place an object in the environment) in most articles using participation in this study, disregarding the
need to understand additional information, such as existing project plans.

The increasing trend of the usage of AR in planning is in line with the general increase of AR
technology as shown by Merino et al. [60]. Additionally, Wolf et al. [61] also mention the increased
use of AR in participation processes. This is in line with the potential AR can have in planning and
rna

participation situations, as shown by the SLR. Further, Hunter et al. [63] confirms this by concluding
that the use and impact of AR are still not explored in larger cities, while it shows to be a novel tool
for enabling interactive participation in cities.

It was shown that research on gamification was limited. Nonetheless, there were indications
of it being a useful tool to increase the motivation and experience of users when using AR applications.
Those ideas are strengthened by the research of Klamert & Münster [64], showing that using various
technologies (including AR) together with gamification can increase the overall interest and
motivation of users to participate in planning projects, and by Gnat et al. [22] mentioning the
Jou

increased motivation when using gamification concepts in AR.

5.4 Limitations
To accommodate for the limited (open) research on AR in the (geo-spatial) planning and
participation domain, a wider variety of subjects relating to planning were included in the search string
and criteria. Two notable additions were the addition of architecture and collaboration subjects. The
use of AR in architecture was similar to the use of AR in planning since it was mainly used to show
 Journal Pre-proof

certain designs or plans to experts or users and the term collaboration provided a higher focus on the
co-design/multiple user aspect. This resulted in the articles being less tailored towards specific
planning or participants contexts. For example, the visualization of cultural elements using AR as a
preservation method is not a direct application for planning but is a useful tool to create more
awareness of the history amongst participants, allowing for a better assessment of possible planning

of
choices.

Secondly, the use of open access articles was a deliberate choice to work with the idea of open
science. Supporting the increased reproducibility, research integrity, and transparency, yet it also
creates some limitations regarding the selection of articles, as it only represents a portion of all the

pro
research available on the use of AR in planning and participation. Another limitation is the lack of
social implications of AR. The work of Hunter et al. [63] showed different social issues that could arise
when using AR in participation.

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

Based on the results, it can be concluded that AR is a promising tool in geo-spatial planning
and participation. In the former, AR shows potential to create a higher understanding and engagement
by the user. In the latter, it is seen as a useful tool that provides higher acceptance and awareness
re-
amongst the participants as well as a useful tool for collaboration and creating an overall intuitive
experience ultimately improving the communication between the participant and the planner.
Nonetheless, the use of AR in geo-spatial planning and participation is still in development as shown
by the limitations of AR, such as a low accuracy of the AR projection, the used hardware, and the
perception of it being a new and technology. Additionally, AR is used mostly in the design phase of the
planning process, indicating that AR currently has a limited use in the overall process.
lP
This research showed that different AR tracking methods and visualization methods are better
suited to be used in different planning phases or participation levels. The use of markerless AR
together with a 1:1 scaled visualization showed to be more engaging and is therefore more suitable
for creating acceptance amongst the participants. The use of marker AR with a table-top visualization
is more useful in a collaborative setting. Consequently, the use of AR can improve the transparency of
the process by making the user more aware of the project. Additionally, it allows for better
expectation management due to the increased acceptance and collaboration possibilities. Due to AR
rna

being increasingly accessible for most users, it can also increase the presentiveness and inclusiveness
of the process. In general, AR can be seen as a useful tool in participation, providing more insights and
a better understanding towards the planning project and increasing the motivation to participate in
planning projects.

In conclusion, the use of AR in the earlier phases of participation shows to be promising and
an effective tool that provides the user with the capability to share their opinion, addressing the
problem of the authority of the planner. The increased motivation and accessibility of AR create more
representativeness and inclusiveness in participation and lastly, the increased understanding and
Jou

engagement of AR increases the transparency and acceptance of the planning project. This research
showed that the use of simple and intuitive AR applications has potential to enhance participation in
the earlier phases of planning. However, challenges like performance limitations and tracking still
need to be overcome for this technology to be fully deployed in interactive participation sessions.

While the results do indicate some social issues (such as the lack of accessibility amongst
elderly people), the focus of this research was mainly technical. Therefore, the findings provide an
incomplete view of the overall (social) implications of AR. Thus, future research directions to build on
 Journal Pre-proof

this article could include consideration and a detailed review of the sociological issues for geo-spatial
planning and the societal impact on integrating AR into the planning process. Other potential research
directions include consideration of wider XR technologies such as MR and VR. Findings presented in
this article may be comparable with MR and VR-focused studies and would provide an interesting
reflection of the impact the differing hardware and software within the geo-spatial planning domain.

of
Lastly, the results showed that AR is mostly used in the design phase of the planning process. Future
research could focus on the effectiveness and application of AR in other planning phases, using the
strengths and limitations of AR as resulted from this research.

pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

References

[1] M. N. Kamel Boulos, Z. Lu, P. Guerrero, C. Jennett, and A. Steed, “From urban planning and
emergency training to Pokémon Go: Applications of virtual reality GIS (VRGIS) and augmented

of
reality GIS (ARGIS) in personal, public and environmental health,” International Journal of
Health Geographics, vol. 16, no. 1. BioMed Central Ltd., Feb. 20, 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12942-
017-0081-0.

[2] J. Chalhoub and S. K. Ayer, “Exploring the performance of an augmented reality application

pro
for construction layout tasks,” Multimed Tools Appl, vol. 78, no. 24, pp. 35075–35098, Dec.
2019, doi: 10.1007/s11042-019-08063-5.

[3] S. Jiang, B. Moyle, R. Yung, L. Tao, and N. Scott, “Augmented reality and the enhancement of
memorable tourism experiences at heritage sites,” Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 26, no. 2,
pp. 242–257, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2022.2026303.

[4] J. Ara, H. Bhuiyan, Y. A. Bhuiyan, S. B. Bhyan, and M. I. Bhuiyan, “AR-based Modern

Healthcare: A Review.”

[5]

[6]
re-
J. Calil et al., “Using Virtual Reality in Sea Level Rise Planning and Community Engagement -
An Overview,” Water (Basel), pp. 1–29, 2021.

J. Huang, M. S. Lucash, R. M. Scheller, and A. Klipper, “Walking through the forests of the
future: using data-driven virtual reality to visualize forests under climate change,”
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, pp. 1155–1178, 2021.

[7] D. Fonseca, F. Valls, E. Redondo, and S. Villagrasa, “Informal interactions in 3D education:

lP
Citizenship participation and assessment of virtual urban proposals,” Comput Human Behav,
pp. 504–518, 2016.

[8] S. M. Saßmannshausen, J. Radtke, H. Bohn, D. Randall, and V. Pipek, “Citizen-Centered Design

in Urban Planning: How Augmented Reality can be used in Citizen Participation Processes,” in
Designing Interactive Systems Conference, New York, 2021.

[9] A. S. Williams et al., “Augmented Reality for City Planning,” in Virtual, Augmented and Mixed
rna

Reality. Design and Interaction, Copenhagen: Springer, 2020, pp. 256–271.

[10] A. van den Brink, R. van Lammeren, R. van den Velde, and S. Däne, “Introduction – geo-
visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe,” in Geo-visualization for
participatory spatial planning in Europe, Wageningen: Wageningen Acedemic Publishers,
2007, pp. 23–32.

[11] R. van Lammeren, J. Houtkamp, S. Colijn, M. Hilferink, and A. Bouwman, “Affective appraisal
of 3D land use visualization,” Compuers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 34, pp. 465–
Jou

475, 2010.

[12] S. Däne and A. van den Brink, “Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in
Europe,” in Geo-visualizations for participatory spatial planning in Europe, Wageningen:
Wageningen Acedemic Publishers, 2007, pp. 33–50.
 Journal Pre-proof

[13] J. Hansart, M. Trefzger, and T. Schlegel, “Interactive AR Models in Participation Processes,” in

Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Design and Interaction, Copenhagen: Springer
International Publishing, 2020, pp. 50–62.

[14] A. Klippel, “From spatial to platial - the role and future of immersive technologies in the

of
spatial sciences,” Journal of spatial information science, pp. 33–45, 2020.

[15] S. Geertman, “Planning Support System (PSS) - a planner’s perspective,” in Plannig Support
Systems for Cities and Regions, Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2008, pp. 213–
230.

pro
[16] D. S. Nikolić, M. D. Pantić, and V. T. Jokić, “Urban and Spatial Planning: Pragmatic
Considerations for Plan Implementation Improvements (A Case Study of the City of Bor),”
Sage Open, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1177/2158244021994554.

[17] M. K. McCall and C. E. Dunn, “Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning:
Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance?,” Geoforum, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 81–94, 2012.

[18] S. R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Planning

Association, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 24–34, 2019.

[19]
re-
H. Imottesjo and J. Kain, “The Urban CoCreatoin Lab - An Integrated Platform for Remote and
Simultaneous Collaborative Urban Planning and Design through Web-Based Desktop 3D
Modeling (...),” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 797, pp. 1–28, 2022.

[20] A. Fenais, S. T. Ariaratnam, S. K. Ayer, and N. Smilovsky, “Integrating Geographic Information

Systems and Augmented Reality for Mapping Underground Utilities,” Infrastructures (Basel),
pp. 1–17, 2019.
lP
[21] M. Allen, H. Regenbrecht, and M. Abbott, “Smart-Phone Augmented Reality for Public
Participation in Urban Planning,” Proceedings of teh 23rd Australian Computer-Human
Interactoin Conference, OzCHI 2011, 2011.

[22] M. Gnat, K. Leszek, and R. Olszewski, “The Use of Geoinformation Technology, Augmented
Reality and Gamification in the Urban Modeling Process,” in Computer science and its
applications - ICCSA 2016, Switzerland: Springer, Cham, 2016, pp. 484–496.
rna

[23] M. H. I. Bloemmen, H. Fransen, T. C. Hoogewerf, A. Ligtenberg, and R. J. A. van Lammeren,

“Report Literature Research Geo-visualization and Participatory Spatial Planning,” Alterra,
Wageningen, 2005.

[24] A. Marzouki, S. Mellouli, and S. Daniel, “Understanding issues with stakeholders paritcipation
processes: A conceptual model of SPPs’ dimensions of issues,” Gov Inf Q, pp. 1–15, 2022.

[25] M. Baker, J. Coaffee, and G. Sherriff, “Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial
planning system.,” Planning, Practice & Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–93, 2007.
Jou

[26] R. A. Irvin and J. Stansbury, “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?,”
Public Adm Rev, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2004.

[27] B. Kitchenham, “Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews,” Keele University, Keele,
2004.
 Journal Pre-proof

[28] B. Kitchenham, O. P. Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. Linkman, “Systematic

literatre reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review,” Inf Softw Technol,
vol. 51, pp. 7–15, 2009.

[29] R. T. Azuma, “A Survey of Augmented Reality,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual

of
Environments, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355–385, Aug. 1997, doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355.

[30] “The New Media CoNsorTiuM.” [Online]. Available: http://www.hp.com.

[31] S. Jeon, J. Hwang, G. J. Kim, and M. Billinghurst, “Interaction with large ubiquitous displays
using camera-equipped mobile phones,” Pers Ubiquitous Comput, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 83–94,

pro
Feb. 2010, doi: 10.1007/s00779-009-0249-0.

[32] I. Z. D. Budić, “Effectiveness of Geographic Information Systems in Local Planning,” Journal of

the American Planning Association, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 244–263, 1994, doi:
10.1080/01944369408975579.

[33] C. Carbonell-Carrera and J. L. Saorín, “Geospatial Google Street View with virtual reality:
Amotivational approach for spatial training education,” ISPRS Int J Geoinf, vol. 6, no. 9, Sep.
2017, doi: 10.3390/ijgi6090261.

[34]

[35]
re-
OpenAIRE, “What is open science,” OpenAIRE. 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.openaire.eu/what-is-open-science

E. U, “Open Science,” European Commision. 2021. [Online]. Available:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-
future/open-science_en

[36] J. Tummers, A. Kassahun, and B. Tekinerdogan, “Obsacles and features of Farm Management
lP
Information Systems: A systematic literature review,” Comput Electron Agric, vol. 157, pp.
189–204, 2019.

[37] C. Panou, L. Ragia, D. Dimelli, and K. Mania, “An architecture for mobile outdoors augmented
reality for cultural heritage,” ISPRS Int J Geoinf, pp. 1–24, 2018.

[38] M. B. Skov, J. Kjeldskov, J. Paay, N. Husted, J. Norskov, and K. Pedersen, “Designing on-site:
rna

Facilitating participatory contextual architecture with mobile phones,” Pervasive Mob

Comput, pp. 216–227, 2013.

[39] V. Gutiérrez et al., “SmartSantander: Internet of things research and innovation through
citizen participation,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 173–186, 2013.

[40] R. Rydvanskiy and N. Hedley, “Mixed reality flood visualizations: Reflections on development
and usability of current systems,” ISPRS Int J Geoinf, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–18, 2021.

[41] N. J. Shih and Y. Chen, “Lidar‐ and ar‐based monitoring of evolved building façades upon
Jou

zoning conflicts,” Sensors (Switzerland), pp. 1–26, 2020.

[42] L. Giunta, E. Dekoninck, and J. Gopsill, “INVESTIGATING the IMPACT of SCALE in DESIGN
SESSIONS SUPPORTED by A SPATIAL AUGMENTED REALITY (SAR) TOOL,” Proceedings of the
Design Society: DESIGN Conference, pp. 131–140, 2020.

[43] J. H. Cheng and Z. J. Shen, “PLANNING SUPPORT TOOL FOR CHECKING BUILDING FORM
LEGALITY WITH AUGMENTED REALITY,” Landsc Archit Front, pp. 132–143, 2019.
 Journal Pre-proof

[44] D. Broschart and P. Ziele, “ARchitecture: Augmented Reality in Architecture and Urban
Planning,” Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 11–118, 2015.

[45] S. Grassi and T. M. Klein, “3D augmented reality for improving social acceptance and public
participation in wind farms planning,” J Phys Conf Ser, pp. 1–10, 2016.

of
[46] A. Ros, M. Giuliani, G. W. Scurati, S. Graziosi, F. Ferrise, and M. Bordegoni, “Participated
Planning of Large Water Infrastructures through Virtual Prototyping Technologies,” 2018.

[47] H. Imottesjo et al., “Iterative prototyping of urban cobuilder: Tracking methods and user
interface of an outdoor mobile augmented reality tool for co-designing,” Multimodal

pro
Technologies and Interaction, pp. 1–21, 2020.

[48] A. Tomkins and E. Lange, “Interactive landscape design and flood visualisation in augmented
reality,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, pp. 1–13, 2019.

[49] L. Marques et al., “CULTURAL HERITAGE 3D MODELLING AND VISUALISATION WITHIN AN

AUGMENTED REALITY ENVIRONMENT, BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES AND MOBILE PLATFORMS,” ACE-ARCHITECTURE CITY AND ENVIRONMENT,
pp. 117–136, 2017.

[50]
re-
T. Goudarznia, M. Pietsch, and R. Krug, “Testing the effectiveness of Augmented Reality in the
Public Participation Process: A Case Study in the City of Bernburg,” Journal of digital
Landscape Architecture, pp. 244–251, 2017.

[51] A. Sánchez Riera, E. Redondo, and D. Fonseca, “Geo-located teaching using handheld
augmented reality: good practices to improve the motivation and qualifications of
architecture students,” Univers Access Inf Soc, pp. 363–374, 2015.
lP
[52] A. Afrooz, H. Ballal, and C. Pettit, “Implementing augmented reality sandbox in geodesign: A
future,” ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, pp. 5–12, 2018.

[53] Fadzli, F. E, Y. M.A.M, A. W. Ismail, M. S. H. Salam, and N. A. Ismail, “ARGarden: 3D outdoor

landscape design using handheld augmented reality with multi-user interaction,” IOP Conf Ser
Mater Sci Eng, pp. 527–533, 2021.
rna

[54] M. F. Syahputra, F. Hardywantara, and U. Andayani, “Augmented Reality Virtual House Model
Using ARCore Technology Based on Android,” J Phys Conf Ser, pp. 1–9, 2020.

[55] A. Devaux, C. Hoarau, M. Brédif, and S. Christophe, “3D urban geovisualization: In situ
augmented and mixed reality experiments,” ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, pp. 41–48, 2018.

[56] B. St-Aubin, M. Mostafavi, S. Roche, and N. Dedual, “A 3D COLLABORATIVE GEOSPATIAL

AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEM FOR URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING PURPOSES,” International
Jou

Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2010.

[57] A. Cirulis and K. B. Brigmanis, “3D outdoor augmented reality for architecture and urban
planning,” Procedia Comput Sci, pp. 71–79, 2013.

[58] H. Imottesjo and J. Kain, “The Urban CoCreatoin Lab - An Integrated Platform for Remote and
Simultaneous Collaborative Urban Planning and Design through Web-Based Desktop 3D
Modeling (...),” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 797, pp. 1–28, 2022.
 Journal Pre-proof

[59] A. Devaux, C. Hoarau, M. Brédif, and S. Christophe, “3D urban geovisualization: In situ
augmented and mixed reality experiments,” ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, pp. 41–48, 2018.

[60] L. Merino, M. Schwarzl, M. Kraus, M. Sedlmair, and D. Schmalstieg, “Evaulating Mixed and

of
Augmented Reality: A Systematic Literature Review (2009-2019),” 2020 IEEE International
Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 438–451, 2020.

[61] M. Wolf, H. Söbke, and F. Wehking, “Mixed Reality Media-Enabled Public Participation in
Urban Planning,” in International Augmented and Virtual Reality Conference 2019, Munich:
Springer, 2019, pp. 125–138.

pro
[62] J. Suchita and J. Sujata, “Role of Augmented Reality Applictoins for Smart City Planning,”
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, pp. 41–46, 2019.

[63] M. Hunter, A. Soro, and R. Brown, “Enhanching Urban Conversation for Smarter Cities -
Augmented Reality as an enabler of digital civic participation,” Interaction Deisgn and
Architecture(s) Journal, pp. 75–99, 2021.

[64] K. Klamert, S. Münster, and P. Parycek, “Child’s Play - A Literature-Based Survey on Gamified
re-
Tools and Methods for Fostering Public Participaiton in Urban Planning,” in Electronic
Participation, Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 24–33.
lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

Appendix
Quality assessment questions with the scoring system

of
No. Question & Scoring
Q1 Are the aims of the study clearly stated?
 1: The aim is clearly stated in the expected place and does correspond the research
questions or objective; 0.5: The aim is vaguely described and/or does not cover the

pro
research question or objective; 0: There is no clear aim of the study and/or the aim
does not make sense regarding the research questions or objective.
Q2 Are the scope, context and design of the study clearly defined?
 1: The scope, context and design of the study are clearly defined in the text and
they seem to fit the aim of the study; 0.5: The scope, context and design are
somewhat described and only partly covering the aim of the study; 0: the scope,
context and design are not well described and do not cover the aim of the study.
Q3 Is the method well defined for providing reliable results?
 1: The method design is able to answer the objective of the study and is able to
provide reliable results; 0.5: The method design is able to answer the objective,

Q4
re-
however the method is less reliable due to for example a smaller sample size; 0:
The method design is poorly chosen to provide answers for the objective of the
study or is not able to provide reliable results.
Are the results of the study stated clearly?
 1: The results do answer the research objective and are in line with the results of
the outcome of the methods (e.g. the results use all the outcomes of the method
correctly without making assumptions); 0.5: The results partly answer the
objective or are not completely in line with the outcome of the methods (e.g. some
lP
results are left out, or too many assumptions); 0: The results do not answer the
objective or are not in line with the methods (e.g. too many results are left out or
too many assumptions).
Q5 Is AR the main focus of the article?
 1: AR is the main focus of the article; 0.5: AR is a main focus, but other concepts
are also part of the research (e.g., VR, MR); 0: AR is not the focus of the study, but
included in the methods and/or results. (Exclude article if AR is just used as an
example or suggestion).
rna

Q6 Are the credibility, validity, and reliability the results clearly discussed?
 1: Any limitation to the credibility, validity and reliability of the results and the
impact of those are clearly discussed; 0.5: Any limitation to the credibility, validity
and reliability of the results are discussed, but the impact of those limitations is
poorly documented; 0: No limitations to the credibility, validity and reliability of
the results are discussed or the impact of those limitations are documented.
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

Author Contributions Section

Reint Jansen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Original draft
preparation Frida Ruiz Mendoza: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing-Reviewing and Editing. Will

of
Hurst: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing-Reviewing and Editing.

pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

declaration of interest statement

Declaration of interests

of
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered

pro
as potential competing interests:

re-
lP
rna
Jou