IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i3p573-d1608315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Planning and Gamification: Insights from Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Katinka Tóbiás

    (Department of Human Geography, University of Szeged, Egyetem u. 2., H-6722 Szeged, Hungary)

  • Lajos Boros

    (Department of Human Geography, University of Szeged, Egyetem u. 2., H-6722 Szeged, Hungary)

Abstract

Involving citizens in public decision making has become more and more important recently. However, activating citizens is challenging in urban planning, especially in post-socialist countries, such as Hungary, where civil activity is weak, and citizens’ attitudes are characterized by distrust towards decision-makers. The gamification of planning processes aims to address this issue and support a more democratic planning process. Gamification is the application of game-like elements (e.g., rewards, storytelling, feedback, competition, etc.) in non-game contexts, thus transforming them into more engaging and enjoyable activities. This study aims to present how gamification is used in the Hungarian urban planning processes and the obstacles to using gamified practices. The research is based on semi-structured interviews with urban planning experts in major Hungarian cities. Our results show that although decision-makers are open to using participatory approaches and gamification techniques, no clear guidelines and principles support these aspirations. The lack of trust and the apathy of citizens makes participatory planning a challenging task. Furthermore, the lack of resources is an obstacle and motivation at the same time when innovative planning methods are used.

Suggested Citation

  • Katinka Tóbiás & Lajos Boros, 2025. "Participatory Planning and Gamification: Insights from Hungary," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-25, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:3:p:573-:d:1608315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/3/573/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/3/573/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    2. Ahmed Ehab & Tim Heath, 2023. "Exploring Immersive Co-Design: Comparing Human Interaction in Real and Virtual Elevated Urban Spaces in London," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Marcin Dąbrowski & Katarzyna Piskorek, 2018. "The development of strategic spatial planning in Central and Eastern Europe: between path dependence, European influence, and domestic politics," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 571-589, October.
    4. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    5. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    6. Nathan Fox & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & Mark Lindquist & Derek Van Berkel & Ramiro Serrano-Vergel, 2022. "Gamifying Decision Support Systems to Promote Inclusive and Engaged Urban Resilience Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 239-252.
    7. Cristina Ampatzidou & Joost Vervoort & Zeynep Falay von Flittner & Kirsikka Vaajakallio, 2022. "New Insights, New Rules: What Shapes the Iterative Design of an Urban Planning Game?," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 295-305.
    8. Nathan Fox & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & Mark Lindquist & Derek Van Berkel & Ramiro Serrano-Vergel, 2022. "Gamifying Decision Support Systems to Promote Inclusive and Engaged Urban Resilience Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 239-252.
    9. Cristina Ampatzidou & Joost Vervoort & Zeynep Falay von Flittner & Kirsikka Vaajakallio, 2022. "New Insights, New Rules: What Shapes the Iterative Design of an Urban Planning Game?," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 295-305.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Hudson-Smith & Moozhan Shakeri, 2022. "The Future’s Not What It Used To Be: Urban Wormholes, Simulation, Participation, and Planning in the Metaverse," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 214-217.
    2. Ali Termos & Neil Yorke-Smith, 2022. "Urbanism and Geographic Crises: A Micro-Simulation Lens on Beirut," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 87-100.
    3. Mariya Georgieva, 2020. "About the Corporate Social Responsibility Beyond the Framework of Charity," Izvestia Journal of the Union of Scientists - Varna. Economic Sciences Series, Union of Scientists - Varna, Economic Sciences Section, vol. 9(1), pages 35-44, April.
    4. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus, 2008. "Corporate citizenship as stakeholder management: An ordonomic approach to business ethics," Discussion Papers 2008-4, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    5. Yusen Dong & Pengcheng Ma & Lanzhu Sun & Daniel Han Ming Chng, 2024. "Goodwill Hunting: Why and When Ultimate Controlling Owners Affect Their Firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 535-553, September.
    6. Ana Esteves & Mary-Anne Barclay, 2011. "New Approaches to Evaluating the Performance of Corporate–Community Partnerships: A Case Study from the Minerals Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 189-202, October.
    7. Jose Luis Retolaza & Maite Ruiz & Leire San‐Jose, 2009. "CSR in business start‐ups: an application method for stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 324-336, November.
    8. Antonio Ledda & Marta Kubacka & Giovanna Calia & Sylwia Bródka & Vittorio Serra & Andrea De Montis, 2023. "Italy vs. Poland: A Comparative Analysis of Regional Planning System Attitudes toward Adaptation to Climate Changes and Green Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Bazlur RAHMAN, & Idris ALI, & Alexandru Mircea NEDELEA, 2017. "Greenwashing In Canadian Firms: An Assessment Of Environmental Claimsgreenwashing In Canadian Firms: An Assessment Of Environmental Claims," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 6(2), pages 1-8, july.
    10. Robbin Derry, 2012. "Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 253-264, December.
    11. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    12. Nicolae Al. Pop & Steluta Todea & Cristina-Veronica Partenie & Cristina Ott, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Perception Regarding Sustainable Universities," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(54), pages 330-330, April.
    13. Iyere Mary & Misopoulos Fotios, 2022. "The degree of stakeholder influences and risks in sustainable supply chains: a systematic literature review," International Journal of Contemporary Management, Sciendo, vol. 58(2), pages 9-26, June.
    14. Jiří Malý & Marek Lichter & Tomáš Krejčí, 2024. "The elusive role of urban form, centrality and scale in the absence of a metropolitan planning agenda: Central European perspective," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), March.
    15. Janita F. J. Vos, 2003. "Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 141-152, September.
    16. Michal Hrivnák & Peter Moritz & Katarína Melichová & Oľga Roháčiková & Lucia Pospišová, 2021. "Designing the Participation on Local Development Planning: From Literature Review to Adaptive Framework for Practice," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, March.
    17. Kim, Chung Hee & Amaeshi, Kenneth & Harris, Simon & Suh, Chang-Jin, 2013. "CSR and the national institutional context: The case of South Korea," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2581-2591.
    18. Sven Ove Hansson, 2018. "How to Perform an Ethical Risk Analysis (eRA)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1820-1829, September.
    19. Samuel Mansell, 2013. "Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 583-599, October.
    20. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:3:p:573-:d:1608315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.