IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/9407.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Urban Design, Public Spaces, and Social Cohesion : Evidence from a Virtual Reality Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Llopis Abella,Jimena
  • Fruttero,Anna
  • Tas,Emcet Oktay
  • Taj,Umar

Abstract

Public spaces can be an instrument to increase social cohesion, yet they are often underutilized.This paper presents findings from a randomized virtual reality experiment with more than 2,000 participants inKarachi, Pakistan. The paper investigates the relationship between urban design, willingness to use public spaces, andsocial cohesion. The findings show that exposure to a two-and-a-half-minute-long virtual reality experiencefeaturing various urban design and social diversity elements has a statistically significant impact. In particular,improvements in the design of a public park through the virtual reality experience increased the park'sperceived attractiveness and participants' willingness to use it. Exposure to diverse social groups in the virtualreality experience, by itself, had mixed impacts on social cohesion indicators such as trust and perception of andwillingness to interact with outgroups. The impacts varied by ethnic affiliation, income, sex, and education level.This may be partly explained by the segregated nature of Karachi and the high prevalence of mistrust of outgroups.The paper illustrates how modern technology can be used as an effective, low-cost tool for diagnosing social phenomena,soliciting feedback about urban interventions for inclusive design, and promoting social contact.

Suggested Citation

  • Llopis Abella,Jimena & Fruttero,Anna & Tas,Emcet Oktay & Taj,Umar, 2020. "Urban Design, Public Spaces, and Social Cohesion : Evidence from a Virtual Reality Experiment," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9407, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:9407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/845321600708199915/pdf/Urban-Design-Public-Spaces-and-Social-Cohesion-Evidence-from-a-Virtual-Reality-Experiment.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taş, Emcet O. & Reimão, Maira Emy & Orlando, Maria Beatriz, 2014. "Gender, Ethnicity, and Cumulative Disadvantage in Education Outcomes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 538-553.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    4. Michael Naef & Jürgen Schupp, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 167, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    5. Qutub, Syed Ayub & Anjum, Nomana, 2015. "Urban open spaces for adolescent girls: An assessment for Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan:," PSSP working papers 27, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Simon Gächter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2015. "Measuring the Closeness of Relationships: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Daisy Das, 2008. "Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 297-310, September.
    9. Carolyn Whitzman, 2007. "Stuck at the Front Door: Gender, Fear of Crime and the Challenge of Creating Safer Space," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(11), pages 2715-2732, November.
    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. James Alm & William D. Schulze & Carrie von Bose & Jubo Yan, 2019. "Appeals to Social Norms and Taxpayer Compliance," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 638-666, October.
    2. Innocenti, Alessandro, 2017. "Virtual reality experiments in economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 71-77.
    3. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen & Garbarino, Ellen & Merrett, Danielle, 2012. "Opting-In: Participation Biases in the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 6865, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Tine Hjernø Lesner & Ole Dahl Rasmussen, 2014. "The identifiable victim effect in charitable giving: evidence from a natural field experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(36), pages 4409-4430, December.
    5. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    6. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    7. Michael L. Anderson & Fangwen Lu, 2017. "Learning to Manage and Managing to Learn: The Effects of Student Leadership Service," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3246-3261, October.
    8. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    9. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John List, 2006. "Information Cascades: Evidence from An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," NBER Working Papers 12767, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Dorsett, Richard & Oswald, Andrew J., 2014. "Human Well-being and In-Work Benefits: A Randomized Controlled Trial," IZA Discussion Papers 7943, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    13. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    14. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    15. Christoph Breunig & Steffen Huck & Tobias Schmidt & Georg Weizsäcker, 2021. "The Standard Portfolio Choice Problem in Germany," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(638), pages 2413-2446.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. Philomena M. Bacon & Peter G. Moffatt, 2012. "Mortgage Choice as a Natural Field Experiment on Choice under Risk," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(7), pages 1401-1426, October.
    18. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    19. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Cohesion; Educational Sciences; Gender and Development; Social Inclusion & Institutions; Economic Growth; Economic Theory & Research; Industrial Economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wbk:wbrwps:9407. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    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.