Ksenia Nikolaeva, Mirko Guaralda, Dan Nyandega
pp. 157 – 191, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-068-006)
Abstract
Community consultations in urban planning often exclude participants due to language barriers, limited feedback, and technical complexity. This study explores how generative artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance inclusivity in participatory design. The study reports an action research case in Samarinda, Indonesia, where the AI tool Midjourney was integrated into three community workshops involving residents, civil-society groups, students, and government officials. Activities combined analogue exercises with structured prompts-crafting and live image generation. The dataset included sketches, prompt fragments, and 133 AI images analysed thematically. Findings suggest that the protocol enabled broader participation across age groups, expanded the range of expressed ideas, and increased in-session legibility and responsiveness of design discussions. Midjourney contributed by accelerating visual iteration and providing shared boundary objects, while the sequenced activities and facilitation structured the feedback loop and made participant influence visible in evolving artefacts. Participants articulated priorities such as cultural identity, local materials, and flood adaptation. Despite challenges related to facilitation, translation, and potential model bias, the study indicates that generative AI can function as an “imagination engine” and boundary object within inclusive, climate-adaptive urban design processes.
Keywords: community engagement, generative AI, participatory placemaking, Midjourney, inclusivity, climate resilience, urban technology..
References
1. Kamols, N., Foth, M., & Guaralda, M. (2021). Beyond engagement theatre: Challenging institutional constraints of participatory planning practice. Australian Planner, 57(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2021.1920993
2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
3. Silverman, R. M., Taylor Jr., H. L., Yin, L., Miller, C., & Buggs, P. (2020). Are we still going through the empty ritual of participation? Inner-city residents’ and other grassroots stakeholders’ perceptions of public input and neighborhood revitalization. Critical Sociology, 46(3), 413–428.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920519837322
4. Christmann, G., Singh, A., Stollmann, J., & Bernhardt, C. (2020). Visual communication in urban design and planning: The impact of mediatisation(s) on the construction of urban futures. Urban Planning, 5(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i2.3279
5. Norton, P., & Hughes, M. (2017). Public consultation and community involvement in planning: A twenty-first century guide (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315563664
6. Gearin, E., & Hurt, C. S. (2024). Making space: A new way for community engagement in the urban planning process. Sustainability, 16(5), 2039.
7. Simonsen J., Robertson T. (eds): Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Routledge, London, (2012)
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108543
8. Kensing F., Greenbaum J.: Heritage: having a say, in: Simonsen J., Robertson T. (eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, 1st ed., Routledge, pp. 21–36, (2012) https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108543.ch2
9. Sanders E. B.-N., Stappers P. J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), pp. 5–18, (2008) https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
10. Cornwall A.: Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices, Community Development Journal, 43(3), pp. 269–283, (2008) https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
11. Kleinhans R., Falco E., Babelon I.: Conditions for networked co-production through digital participatory platforms in urban planning, European Planning Studies, 30(4), pp. 769–788, (2022) https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1998387
12. Goncalves J.E., Slingerland G., Sarabi S., Dane G.: Process first, tools second: A conceptual framework to embed digital participation in planning processes for citizen empowerment, Cities, 170, 106645, (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106645
13. Collins K., Ison R.: Jumping off Arnstein’s Ladder: Social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation, Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), pp. 358–373, (2009) https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.523
14. Guaralda, M., Mayere, S., Caldwell, G., Donovan, J., & Rittenbruch, M. (2019). The InstaBooth: An interactive methodology for community involvement and place-making. Journal of Place Management and Development, 12(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-03-2018-0021
15. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
16. Wilson, A., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2021). Digital participatory planning: Citizen engagement, democracy, and design. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003190639
17. Toukola, S., & Ahola, T. (2022). Digital tools for stakeholder participation in urban development projects. Project Leadership and Society, 3, 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100053
18. Evans-Cowley, J. S., & Hollander, J. B. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
19. Hovik, S., Giannoumis, G. A., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, K. (Eds.). (2022). Citizen participation in the information society. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99940-7
20. Schell, J. (2019). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Third Edition (3rd ed.). A K Peters/CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22101
21. Muehlhaus, S. L., Eghtebas, C., Seifert, N., Schöning, J., Pannasch, S., & König, R. (2023). Game.UP: Gamified urban planning participation enhancing exploration, motivation, and interactions. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.2012379
22. UN-Habitat: The Block by Block Playbook: Using Minecraft as a participatory design tool in urban design and governance, UN-Habitat, Nairobi, (2021)
https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/09/1-bbb_playbook_publication_final.pdf
23. Gaete Cruz M., Ersoy A., Czischke D., van Bueren E.: A Framework for Co-Design Processes and Visual Collaborative Methods: An Action Research Through Design in Chile, Urban Planning, 7(3), pp. 363–378, (2022) https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5349
24. Brown G., Kyttä M.: Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research, Applied Geography 46, pp. 122-136, (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004
25. Slingerland G., Mikusch G., Tappert S., Paraschivoiu I., Vettori B., Tellioglu H.: The role of digital technologies in urban co-creation practices, Human Technology, 20(2), pp. 244–284, (2024) https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-2.3
26. Hunter, M., Soro, A., & Brown, R. (2021). Enhancing urban conversation for smarter cities – Augmented reality as an enabler of digital civic participation. Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 48, 75–99. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-048-004
27. Dane G., Evers S., van den Berg P., Klippel A., Verduijn T., Wallgrün J.O., Arentze T.: Experiencing the future: Evaluating a new framework for the participatory co-design of healthy public spaces using immersive virtual reality, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 114, 102194, (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102194
28. Pueyo-Ros J., Comas J., Säumel I., Castellar J.A.C., Popartan L.A., Acuña V., Corominas L.: Design of a serious game for participatory planning of nature-based solutions: The experience of the Edible City Game, Nature-Based Solutions 3, 100059, (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2023.100059
29. Sousa M.: The mechanics of drawing: Helping planners use serious games for participatory planning, plaNext – Next Generation Planning 12, pp. 84-100, (2022) https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt/80
30. Al-Kodmany, K. (2002). Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541202762475946
31. Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2090–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.023
32. Ye, X., Du, J., Han, Y., Newman, G., Retchless, D., Zou, L., Ham, Y., & Cai, Z. (2022). Developing human-centered urban digital twins for community infrastructure resilience: A research agenda. Journal of Planning Literature, 38(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122221137861
33. Luo, J., Liu, P., Kong, X., Shen, J., Wu, Q., & Xu, D. (2025). Urban digital twins for citizen-centric planning: A systematic review of built environment perception and public participation. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 143, 104746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2025.104746
34. \Parisa. (2024). Virtual reality training for sustainable urban planning and citizen engagement. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4367663/v1
35. Wiethoff, A., Hoggenmueller, M., Rossmy, B., Hirsch, L., Hespanhol, L., & Tomitsch, M. (2021). A media architecture approach for designing the next generation of urban interfaces. Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 48, 9–32. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-048-001
36. Caldwell, G., & Foth, M. (2014). DIY media architecture: Open and participatory approaches to community engagement. In Proceedings of the 2nd Media Architecture Biennale Conference (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1145/2682884.2682893
37. Fredericks, J., & Foth, M. (2012). Augmenting public participation: Enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0. Australian Planner, 50(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.748083
38. Jaskiewicz, T., Mulder, I., Morelli, N., & Pedersen, J.S. (2019). Hacking the hackathon format to empower citizens in outsmarting “smart” cities. Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 43, 8–29. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-043-001
39. Berditchevskaia A., Peach K., Malliaraki E.: Participatory AI for humanitarian innovation: a briefing paper, Nesta, London, (2021)
https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Nesta_Participatory_AI_for_humanitarian_innovation_Final.pdf
40. Bratteteig T., Verne G.: Does AI make PD obsolete?: exploring challenges from artificial intelligence to participatory design, in Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial – Volume 2 (PDC ’18), pp. 1–5, (2018) https://doi.org/10.1145/3210604.3210646
41. Chiou L.-Y., Hung P.-K., Liang R.-H., Wang C.-T.: Designing with AI: An Exploration of Co-Ideation with Image Generators, in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23), pp. 1941–1954, (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596001
42. Awashra, I., Thompson, A. W., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J. G., Church, S. P., Genskow, K., Prokopy, L. S., Rui, Y., & Tesdell, O. (2025). Generative AI text-to-image for community participation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 264, 105464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105464
43. Mushkani, R., Berard, H., & Koseki, S. (2025). WeDesign: Generative AI–facilitated community consultations for urban public space design (preprint). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19256
44. Cardoso, P. J. S., & Rodrigues, J. M. F. (2025). Human-centered AI in placemaking: A review of technologies, practices, and impacts. Applied Sciences, 15 (17), 9245. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179245
45. Vincent, J. (2022, August 2). AI image generation is the next big thing in art — here’s how Midjourney is different. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/2/23287173/ai-image-generation-art-midjourney-multiverse-interview-david-holz
46. Guridi, J. A., Cheyre, C., Goula, M., Santo, D., Humphreys, L., Souras, A., & Shankar, A. (2025). Image generative AI to design public spaces: A reflection of how AI could improve co-design of public parks. Digital Government Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3656588
47. Deitz, M., Notley, T., Catanzaro, M., Third, A., & Sandbach, K. (2018). Emotion mapping: Using participatory media to support young people’s participation in urban design. Emotion, Space and Society, 28, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2018.05.009
48. Newman, G., & Kim, B. (2017). Urban shrapnel: Spatial distribution of non-productive space in a growing city. Landscape Research, 42(7), 699–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1363877
49. Tsoriyo, W. (2024). Place attachment and participation in community-driven development in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Town and Regional Planning, 84, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.38140/trp.v84i.7954
50. Frauenberger C., Good J., Fitzpatrick G., Iversen O.S.: In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, pp. 93–106, (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.004
51. KEMITRAAN. (2023, December 27). Adaptation Fund Project – Samarinda. Program description. https://kemitraan.or.id/en/program/3476/
52. Wiethoff, A., Hoggenmueller, M., Rossmy, B., Hirsch, L., Hespanhol, L., & Tomitsch, M. (2021). A media architecture approach for designing the next generation of urban interfaces. Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 48, 9–32. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-048-001
53. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
54. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
55. Kawakita A.: Explanation of the KJ Method, Kawakita Research Institute, Ltd. (n.d.) https://kj-kawakita.co.jp/explanation-of-the-kj-method/
56. Karabağ, Ç., & Tekin, İ. (2025). Surrealist dreams of artificial intelligence: Revisiting Frederick Kiesler’s “Endless House”. Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 64, 231–258. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-064-006
57. Du, J., Ye, X., Jankowski, P., Sanchez, T. W., & Mai, G. (2023). Artificial intelligence enabled participatory planning: A review. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 28(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2023.2262427