Practitioner engagement methods are essential for understanding diverse perspectives and providing opportunities to develop a unified strategic approach to contentious transport planning issues, such as shared spaces. These are road infrastructure designs that minimize the separation between travel modes and equalize the priority across all the modes. This study investigates the design and implementation of a novel engagement methodology, Lego Serious Play® (LSP), to discuss the implementation of shared space solutions in practice while also enhancing participant experience. A case study of practitioners in New South Wales, Australia was conducted to identify opportunities, challenges, and the future potential of applying the methodology. Outcomes from the workshops revealed that the LSP methodology enabled participants to articulate their views, debate various ideas, and compromise. Shared spaces emerged as a key strategy for achieving place-based outcomes, particularly through a zone-based implementation approach in which design elements are gradually introduced across a road network to help users adapt to the changing environment. Key aspects and metrics were identified, shaping future guidance for shared spaces design and assessment. The storytelling component of the LSP technique was particularly effective in fostering discussion and achieving consensus. The findings suggest that the LSP methodology holds potential for application in other engineering and design disciplines, offering a novel approach to engagement and collaborative problem-solving.
WijayaratnaK.da RochaC.ZeibotsM.BradburyN.NishandarN.Evaluation and Implementation of Shared Spaces in NSW: Framework for Road Infrastructure Design and Operations to Establish Placemaking Examination of Existing Shared Space Knowledge. NSW Government, Sydney, Australia, 2022.
2.
Hamilton-BaillieB.Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places and Traffic. Built Environment, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2008, pp. 161–181.
3.
CIHT. Creating Better Streets: Inclusive and Accessible Places—Reviewing Shared Space. Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, London, 2018.
4.
KarndacharukA.WilsonD. J.DunnR. C. M.Analysis of Pedestrian Performance in Shared-Space Environments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2393: 1–11.
5.
KarndacharukA.WilsonD. J.DunnR. C. M.Safety Performance Study of Shared Pedestrian and Vehicle Space in New Zealand. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2014. 2464: 1–10.
6.
KarndacharukA.WilsonD. J.TseM.Shared Space Performance Evaluation: Quantitative Analysis of Pre-Implementation Data. Proc., Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) Transportation Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 2011.
7.
ImrieR.Shared Space and the Post-Politics of Environmental Change. Urban Studies, Vol. 50, No. 16, 2013, pp. 3446–3462.
8.
ImrieR.Auto-Disabilities: The Case of Shared Space Environments. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 44, No. 9, 2012, pp. 2260–2277.
9.
HolmesC.Accidents by Design: The Holmes Report on “Shared Space” in the United Kingdom. Lord Holmes of Richmond, London, 2015.
AlsalehR.SayedT.Markov-Game Modeling of Cyclist-Pedestrian Interactions in Shared Spaces: A Multi-Agent Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning Approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 128, 2021, p. 103191.
12.
DuB.ShenJ.ZhangC.SarkarA.DaviesT.Identifying Impacting Factors of Road Network and Land Use Correlated with Accidents of Vulnerable Road Users. Government of the Australian Capital Territory, Canberra, 2023.
13.
JakobowskyC.SiebertF.SchießlC.JunghansM.DotzauerM.Why So Serious?-Comparing Two Traffic Conflict Techniques for Assessing Encounters in Shared Space. Transactions on Transport Sciences, Vol. 3, 2021, pp. 4–14.
14.
JohoraF. T.MüllerJ. P.On Transferability and Calibration of Pedestrian and Car Motion Models in Shared Spaces. Transportation Letters, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2021, pp. 172–182.
15.
Slack-SmithD.WijayaratnaK. P.ZeibotsM.The Development of Modeling Shared Spaces to Support Sustainable Transport Systems: Introduction to the Integrated Pedestrian–Vehicle Model (IPVM). Sustainability, Vol. 16, No. 10, 2024, pp. 4227.
16.
WijayaratnaK.da RochaC.BradburyN.TranA.Evaluation and Implementation of Shared Spaces in NSW: Empirical Analysis of Shared Road Infrastructure in Collation of Shared Road Infrastructure Perspectives and Local Examples. NSW Government, Sydney, Australia, 2024.
17.
ZhangC.DuB.ZhengZ.ShenJ.Space Sharing Between Pedestrians and Micro-Mobility Vehicles: A Systematic Review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 116, 2023, p. 103629.
18.
ElliotJ.LohseK.TooleJ.LockwoodI.BarlowJ.BentzenB.PorterC.Accessible Shared Streets—Notable Practices and Considerations for Accommodating Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. US Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration, Washington, D.C., 2017.
19.
Global Designing Cities Initiative and National Association of City Transportation Officials. Global Street Design Guide. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2016.
20.
KarndacharukA.WilsonD. J.DunnR. C. M.A Review of the Evolution of Shared (Street) Space Concepts in Urban Environments. Transport Reviews, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2014, pp. 190–220.
21.
AndriofJ.WaddockS.Unfolding Stakeholder Engagement. In Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking (AndriofJ.WaddockS.HustedB.RahmanS. S., eds.). Routledge, London, 2017, pp. 19–42.
22.
ErkulM.YitmenI.ÇelikT.Stakeholder Engagement in Mega Transport Infrastructure Projects. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 161, 2016, pp. 704–710.
23.
WardD.Stakeholder Involvement in Transport Planning: Participation and Power. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2001, pp. 119–130.
24.
Le PiraM.IgnaccoloM.InturriG.PluchinoA.RapisardaA.Modelling Stakeholder Participation in Transport Planning. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2016, pp. 230–238.
25.
BarfodM. B.Supporting Sustainable Transport Appraisals Using Stakeholder Involvement and MCDA. Transport, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2018, pp. 1052–1066.
26.
ShibayamaT.PungilloG.LemmererH.NoceraS.Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making Process: A Test Assessment Towards Transition to Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 48, 2020, pp. 2550–2568.
27.
Esztergár-KissD.TettamantiT.Stakeholder Engagement in Mobility Planning. In Autonomous Vehicles and Future Mobility. (CoppolaP.Esztergár-KissD., Eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2019, pp. 113–123.
28.
CurlA.NelsonJ. D.AnableJ.Does Accessibility Planning Address What Matters? A Review of Current Practice and Practitioner Perspectives. Research in Transportation Business & Management, Vol. 2, 2011, pp. 3–11.
29.
LyonsG.RohrC.SmithA.RothnieA.CurryA.Scenario Planning for Transport Practitioners. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 11, 2021, p. 100438.
30.
CunhaI.SilvaC.BüttnerB.Practitioners’ Perspectives on Cycling Equity: Bridging the Gap Between Planning Priorities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 123, 2023, p. 103902.
31.
LöfgrenS.Designing with Differences, Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Transport Infrastructure Planning and Design. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 4, 2020, p. 100106.
32.
ForresterJ.Improved Partnership Working for Local Authority Transport Planning. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2009, pp. 314–330.
33.
OpitS.WittenK.Unlocking Transport Innovation: A Sociotechnical Perspective of the Logics of Transport Planning Decision-Making Within the Trial of a New Type of Pedestrian Crossing. National Science Challenges Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities, Auckland, 2018.
34.
PetrunoffN.RisselC.WenL. M.“If You Don’t Do Parking Management.. Forget Your Behaviour Change, It’s Not Going to Work.”: Health and Transport Practitioner Perspectives on Workplace Active Travel Promotion. PLoS One, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2017, p. e0170064.
35.
WittenK.CarrollP.Calder-DaweO.SmithM.FieldA.HoskingJ.Te Ara Mua–Future Streets: Knowledge Exchange and the Highs and Lows of Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration to Design Active Travel Infrastructure. Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 9, 2018, pp. 34–44.
36.
te BrömmelstroetM.CurtisC.LarssonA.MilakisD.Strengths and Weaknesses of Accessibility Instruments in Planning Practice: Technological Rules Based on Experiential Workshops. European Planning Studies, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2016, pp. 1175–1196.
37.
StaubA.IuloL. D.User-participation and the design charrette: A systematic approach to furthering design process. In Proceedings of the 2011 ARCC Architectural Research Conference: Reflecting upon Current Themes in Architectural Research (PlowrightP., ed.), ARCC Conference Repository, Michigan, 2011, pp. 305–313.
38.
NoguésS.González-GonzálezE.CorderaR.New Urban Planning Challenges Under Emerging Autonomous Mobility: Evaluating Backcasting Scenarios and Policies Through an Expert Survey. Land Use Policy, Vol. 95, 2020, p. 104652.
39.
HirschhornF.Reflections on the Application of the Delphi Method: Lessons from a Case in Public Transport Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2019, pp. 309–322.
40.
BurdettB. R.WittenK.WillingE.AmeratungaS.Inclusive access in transport policy and practice: Views of New Zealand transport practitioners. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2021, pp. 1593–1599.
41.
van WeeB.Is it Really a Stupid Idea? The Counterfactual Check. Transport Reviews, No. 6, 2023, pp. 1055–1057.
42.
van WeeB.De VosJ.MaatK.Impacts of the Built Environment and Travel Behaviour on Attitudes: Theories Underpinning the Reverse Causality Hypothesis. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 80, 2019, p. 102540.
43.
van WeeB.AnnemaJ. A.Van BarneveldS.Controversial Policies: Growing Support After Implementation. A Discussion Paper. Transport Policy, Vol. 139, 2023, pp. 79–86.
44.
AlabiS. F.CarpenterK.SheaM.VasquezL.Benitez MajanoS.MazaM.LucianiS.AlbantiI.Storytelling Workshop to Encourage Stakeholder Engagement with the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública= Pan American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 47, No. 9, 2023, p. 9.
45.
SundinA.AnderssonK.WattR.Rethinking Communication: Integrating Storytelling for Increased Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Evidence Synthesis. Environmental Evidence, Vol. 7, 2018, pp. 1–6.
46.
SteenkampH.RensburgR. S.CSR on Display: Using Spectacles and Storytelling as Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms. Communitas, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2019. pp. 21–40.
47.
MourikR.SonettiG.RobisonR. A.The Same Old Story–or Not? How Storytelling Can Support Inclusive Local Energy Policy. Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 73, 2021, p. 101940.
48.
NinanJ.SergeevaN.Mobilizing Megaproject Narratives for External Stakeholders: A Study of Narrative Instruments and Processes. Project Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 5, 2022, pp. 520–540.
49.
McCuskerS.Everybody’s Monkey is Important: LEGO® Serious Play® as a Methodology for Enabling Equality of Voice Within Diverse Groups. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2020, pp. 146–162.
50.
GrienitzV.SchmidtA.-M.Scenario Workshops for Strategic Management with Lego® Serious Play®. Problems of Management in the 21st Century, Vol. 3, 2012, p. 26.
51.
Cerezo-NarváezA.Córdoba-RoldánA.Pastor-FernándezA.Aguayo-GonzálezF.Otero-MateoM.Ballesteros-PérezP.Training Competences in Industrial Risk Prevention with Lego® Serious Play®: A Case Study. Safety, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019, p. 81.
52.
PrimusD. J.SonnenburgS.Flow Experience in Design Thinking and Practical Synergies with Lego Serious Play. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2018, pp. 104–112.
53.
DowlingD.HadgraftR.LambornJ.Developing an Inclusive Stakeholder Consultation Process: A Case Study. Proc., 22nd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AaeE 2011), University of Southern Queensland, 2011.
54.
HilsonG.MurckB.Sustainable Development in the Mining Industry: Clarifying the Corporate Perspective. Resources Policy, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2000, pp. 227–238.
55.
WheelerS.PassmoreJ.GoldR.All to Play for: LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® and its Impact on Team Cohesion, Collaboration and Psychological Safety in Organisational Settings Using a Coaching Approach. Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2020, pp. 141–157.
56.
Rasmussen Consulting. Facilitator’s Manual—Designing and Facilitating Workshops with LEGO Serious Play(R) Method. Rasmussen Consulting, Kolding, Denmark, 2022.
57.
CarteniA.MarzanoV.HenkeI.CascettaE.A Cognitive and Participative Decision-Making Model for Transportation Planning Under Different Uncertainty Levels. Transport Policy, Vol. 116, 2022, pp. 386–398.
58.
NostikasariD.CaseyC.Institutional Barriers in the Coproduction of Knowledge for Transportation Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2020, pp. 671–691.
LearE.DannS.JohnP. K.Using Lego® Serious Play™ Processes to Build Responsible Professionals. Proc., IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Porto, Portugal, 2020, IEEE, New York, NY.
61.
Auckland Council. Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017—Requirements for the Management and Use of Shared Spaces. Auckland Council Auckland, New Zealand, 2017.
62.
ArcherE. V.Improving Shared Spaces with a Placemaking Approach: Lessons from Adelaide. University of Otago, New Zealand, 2014.
