Participatory design has evolved since its introduction in Scandinavia in the 1960s (Figure 1), but the concept can be traced to Morris (1891), G. Paulsson (1919), and Paulsson and Paulsson’s (1956), participatory efforts in urban planning (Holmlid, 2009). It emphasises design-oriented approaches like design probes, tools-making, and analogue workshops (Gaver et al., 1999; Mattelmäki, 2006). In the 2000s, generative tools and gamification began to play a role in participatory design (Sanders, 2000; Brandt & Messeter, 2004). Its innovative and critical thinking has made it a popular field of study, exploring how users can co-learn, uncover common grounds and conflicting values (Titlestad et al., 2009; DiSalvo et al., 2012; Hess & Pipek 2012; Simonsen & Hertzum 2012). The term “user” refers to the actual end-users of the design outcome, who would be involved throughout the design and decision-making processes and as early as possible, including pre-design and final strategic decision phases (Rocha, 1997). By engaging the community in this process, designers, managers, local organisations, and users generate shared expressions and mutual understanding to ultimately take positive actions (Bodker, 1996; Luck, 2003; Holtzblatt & Jones, 2017).

During participatory design processes, the boundaries between users and professionals become increasingly blurred, questioning authorship, and adding complexity to the role of designers. According to Luck (2003; 2007), it is the responsibility of designers to assist users with their expertise—provide design guidance, explore the potential of user’s design outcomes, and communicate with users effectively so that they can exchange knowledge and obtain more accurate design perspectives. Designers should identify appropriate means to summarise and extract strategies and recommendations from user interactions and develop cohesive conclusions (Espinosa, 2022). These processes might involve role-swapping and role-playing between participants, with users proposing design strategies while designers’ question and contribute ideas from professional perspectives, all within a broad, open, and inclusive process (Sanoff, 1988; Reich et al., 1996). It is important to note that the mechanisms are not always inclusive to all stakeholders in resolving real-life problems, for instance to children, older adults, and illiterates (Bornat & Shaw, 2019; Gerber & Götz, 2020; Lee et al., 2021).

In the built environment disciplines, designers (architects and planners) generally use participatory design to gather opinions from stakeholders and propose forward-looking strategies. Common methods include collective drawing and physical modelling (O'Coill & Doughty, 2004). Within the complexity of urban planning, a simple, linear model of participatory design has shortcomings, such as restricted spatial analysis capabilities; however, this simplicity and intuitiveness improves user-friendliness and inclusivity (Al-Kodmany, 1999). In high-density urban contexts, top-down approaches promote efficient and focused implementation of designs, which can lead to the marginalisation of users that participatory design may help to relieve (Lee, 2003). High-density housing projects often deploy speculative development strategies—the end-users are not known until after construction is completed—and there are immense challenges in making participatory processes such as public hearings, neighbourhood meetings, community outreach, citizen forums and workshops feasible and scalable (Ismail & Said, 2015).

With the advancements of digital technology, participatory design is evolving and incorporating devices and software into its processes, including simulations, videogames, virtual charrettes, and data visualisation (Hou & Rios, 2003). Digital approaches may provide a means for users to experience living environments and design strategies in real-time, comprehend complex social issues that arise from the surroundings and propose relevant opinions (Al-Kodmany, 2001). Studies have shown that the use of the internet as a platform to facilitate online collaboration may address the limitations of coverage, duration and engagement caused by traditional face-to-face workshops and exhibitions (Ali et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2021). Scholars have noted that both traditional and computerised approaches have merits, and participatory design should integrate old and new methods to facilitate and motivate all types of users (Holmlid, 2009).

Recent urban development projects have started to promote digital participation through VR, interactive websites, and geographic information systems (GIS) (Panek & Netek, 2019; Ruggeri & Szilágyi-Nagy, 2019). Virtual environments built based on computer games may assist users who are not familiar with hand-drawing and handcrafts to express themselves via interactive digital interfaces and understand the city in a fun and easy manner. Also, VR community games may facilitate a sense of realness to help users to better understand their society, exchange ideas on spatial design, and guide each other in sharing information. Designers can study gaming outcomes and processes to gain insight into the needs of different stakeholders (Corburn, 2003). Web-based platforms are easily accessible with commonly used mobile devices, and therefore are more digitally inclusive; planners may publish urban issues to facilitate the discussion and participation of all residents and communities, example projects include the 2016 “Tempelhof Field” in Berlin by the Senate Department of Urban Development and Environment and the “Reallabor” for sustainable mobility culture in Stuttgart (Giering, 2011; Pfau and Uhl, 2021).

Gamification is a relatively new concept in the field of participatory design. “On its surface, gamification is simply the use of game mechanics to make learning and instruction more fun [...] Underneath the surface is the idea of engagement, story, autonomy, and meaning.” (Kapp, 2012). The use of game elements and game-based dynamics in a non-gamified context may facilitate collaboration and public education, with sophisticated graphics and interfaces, fantasy features, and gaming challenges to enhance user experience and curiosity (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004). Scholars have differing opinions about the fundamental elements of gamification design and structure. Schell (2008) considered four core aspects: Aesthetics, mechanics, technology, and story. Kapp (2012, p. 7) stated that game systems should converge factors of ‘“players,” “abstract” thinking, “challenge,” rules,” “interactivity,” “feedback,” “quantifiable results” and “emotional reaction.” Non-entertainment games should include briefings to ensure that players are aware of what is happening during the game and what they can expect, while appropriate rewards and punishments may motivate players to reach specific goals (Fabricatore, 2007; Björk, 2009). Every game has ultimate achievement goals, however, to attain these goals, players should follow a set of rules. Kapp (2012) divided the rules into four categories based on different targeted users and purposes:

1) Operational goals—instructions on how to win the game;

Gamification may incorporate social values or problem-solving—“serious games”—games with educational purposes, like physics games, engineering games, business games, and social impact games (McGonigal, 2011; Kosmadoudi et al., 2013; Scholten, 2017; Ahlqvist & Schlieder, 2018). According to Wanick and Bitelo’s (2017) study, gamification has gradually been embraced in non-commercial areas, especially for co-learning; Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) found that serious games may help designers to access user’s feedback more directly and effectively; and Khaled and Vasalou (2014) have engaged children as co-designers in the development of educational games. Other researchers have discussed the application of games to community and urban development issues, for instance, Karabinus and Atherton (2019) designed social deception games across digital platforms to improve community access to planning discussions. Tan’s (2019) “Play the city” led the field in game-based solutions for urban design discussions, employing analogue games such as board games and card games.

While serious games contribute greatly to entertainment and education, Dickinson, Zeng and Antunes’s (2005) research found that more “natural” interactive mechanisms and new technologies, such as voice recognition and 3D graphics, may stimulate creative thinking. The appearance of good quality and enjoyable videogame has started to revolutionise innovation in collective decision-making, and many scholars have begun to integrate it with urban design. “Block Hood” by Jose Sanchez (2015) is a videogame that explores urban sustainability, with the aim of improving players’ knowledge of urban planning and environmental design. Yenardi and Janssen (2021) used a voxel-based 3D modelling approach to develop a web-game that empowers communities to co-create spatial configurations. A participatory videogame organised by Emerson College (2010) involved residents to discuss Boston’s Chinatown from various perspectives of the community and collaborate through role-playing. In contrast to other forms of computer-aided participatory design, videogames are more focused on enhancing processes of participation, engagement, and motivation (Fitz-Walter et al., 2012; Kosmadoudi et al., 2013; Rocha Seixas et al., 2016; Landers et al., 2017).

Human-Machine interaction (HMI) is a field that focuses on the research, design, and use of interfaces to allow humans to interact with computers in novel ways (Guy, 2013). It offers insights for the development of the computational environments for cooperative frameworks, applied to complex social challenges such as the planning of collective housing (Hoc, 2001). Digital technologies could help here to assist decision-making, by enabling public evaluation of any spatial solutions (Sánchez-Sepúlveda et al., 2018). The improvement of visual technologies has brought highly impactful new processes to public education and urban design, combining 2D maps, CAD visualisations and 3D VR as new public participation tools. These 3D technologies and their strong visualisation capabilities have assisted in the conceptualisation and analysis of many recent urban design projects, which enabled participants to experience proposals in an immersive way and engage with dynamic scenarios through interactive elements (Martín‐Dorta et al., 2008; Redondo et al., 2020). For instance, “RFD 2018” used VR to engage citizens in the urban planning of Cape Town, South Africa, facilitating co-learning processes, where designers and citizens learn from each other (Sánchez-Sepúlveda et al., 2018). In these non-formal learning processes, learners obtain attitudes, values, skills, and knowledge from daily life experiences and resources in their environments (Coombs et al., 1973; Fonseca et al., 2016). The embedding of co-learning activities in everyday life situations allows participants to develop more socially sustainable and inclusive projects (Valls et al., 2018).

The case study estate is one of more than 400 individual housing estates in Hong Kong, which collectively accommodate around 3.2 million people or 45% of the population in public rental housing and subsidised home ownership programmes (Hong Kong Housing Bureau, 2021). The estate (Figure 2) is one of 23 public housing estates in the Shatin district and was completed in 1982 for the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS)—a non-profit housing provider which works closely with the Hong Kong government. It contains three residential towers, each with a high block (32 floors) and a low block (8 floors), surrounding a public area with a wet market, shops, car parks, and outdoor leisure spaces connected by pedestrian paths and elevated walkways. It is currently inhabited by more than 9,000 residents, with 24.9% of residents aged over 65 and only 7.3% of youth (Centamap, 2016). This indicates that the estate has a larger proportion of older adults than other estates, and a growing need to care for and attend to an ageing population. The HKHS (2021b) has announced as its main priorities, the ambition to upgrade its public amenities and increase services to help socialise communities, as part of its mission to support intergenerational community building and active ageing.

Similar to many other housing estates which have been constructed in the 1970s and 80s and are now turning 50 years old, JMC Estate’s open spaces feature deteriorating facilities and outdated public space layouts. Increasing pressures on services for long term care and community care, combined with the government’s “Ageing in Place” policy, highlight the necessity for this type of ageing estate to upgrade its shared facilities to stimulate supportive community processes. Studies show that the quality of life of public housing tenants can be improved through socialising spaces and community facilities (Saunders et al., 2014; Gou et al., 2018). Well-planned facilities improve people’s interaction with neighbours and the surrounding context, which contributes to public housing residents’ well-being and integration within society (Zheng et al., 2015; Lau & Murie, 2017). Research has shown that some of the key factors that impact quality of life are 1) outdoor spaces, 2) social participation, 3) respect and inclusion and 4) community support services. These factors contribute to active ageing, social integration, and benefits to physical and psychological health for older adult residents (Yung et al., 2017).

Since the acceleration and upgrading of the public housing programme in the 1970s, Hong Kong’s estate planning policies have focused on creating “self-contained” communities, incorporating comprehensive facilities such as schools, shopping complexes, recreational facilities, and markets within estates (Kan, 1978). The markets gravitate and enrich the daily life of residents and provide basic necessities including affordable groceries and household items, organised in modular stalls run by independent businesses (Chan, 2022). The regulation and organisation of the markets has been refined throughout their development, from a simple classification of “dry” and “wet” goods in the beginning to more detailed regulations in 1975—separating meat, fish, poultry, vegetables and fruits, and “other” foods, like eggs, non-perishable frozen, dried, or packaged foods (Urban Council, 1975) (Figure 3).

In 1982, the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) were introduced to set out requirements for residential densities and recreational and commercial facilities. Simultaneously, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA) opened its regular meetings to the public, which was the beginning of public participation and engagement (HKHA, 2019). Public housing in Hong Kong has, throughout its history, been built in response to the urgent housing needs of a rapidly growing population and has therefore been planned and designed in a top-down process focusing on efficiency. However, since the start of the ‘non-standard’ estate planning scheme in the 2000s, small-scale public engagement projects, such as sculptures chosen by residents and murals painted by children, have been implemented (HKHA, 2011). While such projects add to the beautification and identity of the estate spaces, participation in major planning decisions has not been facilitated.

Phase 1 took place from February to May 2022 and involved initial tests with designers and students using board games, with game design focusing on rule sets, score tables, rankings, and toolkits. The game asked players to design and plan public amenities, such as recreational facilities and local shops in the estate’s public spaces. A grid was projected on the overall site area, on which players were able to place modular amenities (Figure 5). During each round, players would select a resident character type, such as “young professional,” “teenager,” etc., and consider their needs and point-of-view in choosing from a library of amenities. Basic site information was included in the board game, such as entrances to residential towers and connections to the context. Game designers took up the role of facilitator—guiding the participants through the gaming process, explaining the rules when necessary and informing them of the potential consequences of their actions (Fuad-Luke, 2009).

In the experiments, three players with different characters participated in each game, which was played four rounds (Figure 6). Several iterations of the game were played to refine the game rules based on an analysis of the game outcomes, for example, “no elements can be placed on the circulation corridor”, “objects taller than 2 m cannot be placed,” and “no private elements to be placed in shared spaces.” As the rules multiplied, the game process became increasingly complex, which highlighted several problems and challenges.

First, a lack of realism. As the users are often not experienced or trained in spatial design thinking, the abstractions of the game board and play elements often limit the player’s ability to fully understand the situation (Granath, 2001). The user interface should represent the actual environment as much as possible to facilitate a sense of realism and could be enhanced by more interaction and feedback while developing different scenarios. Second, participants’ engagement and concentration. without a professional background, it was hard for participants to develop a full understanding of the proposals. This put much reliance on designers to explain the significance and meanings of the configurations, which reduced the quality of the gaming outcomes, lengthened the duration of the game, and discouraged players from taking part. Sometimes, a single round could take up to 2 h, and players became disinterested.

Third, the matching of users’ needs—players without specialist knowledge had difficulties realising and expressing their needs and ideas accurately (Granath, 2001). To assist the situation while ensuring diversity, designers listed over 100 amenities for players to choose from and divided them into three main categories based on Maslow’s (1958) ‘Theory of Human Needs’. However, the list was too overwhelming for most players; also, the designers’ thinking was limited by a lack of understanding of the local context—however long the list of amenities was, it could not meet the actual needs of the users. Fourth, non-cooperativeness—although it was a multiplayer game, it was not a team-play game, which resulted in a lack of communication and interaction between players. The choice of amenities became solely based on individual interests and resulted in little cooperation between players. As dice rolling was introduced to bring an element of chance, this also created unnecessary uncertainty that impeded the progress of the game and heightened a sense of competition rather than cooperation between players. Fifth, A high dependency on the facilitators - because of the complexity of the design problem and the elaborated game system, non-designers developed a dependency on the designers to explain the rules and scenarios, translate their needs and opinions, and formulate design strategies. This caused the designers to influence the outcomes of the gameplay significantly, which reduced the integrity of the participatory process.

Based on these reflections, the problems were summarised into five goals for the game design upgrade during our next stage:

1) Environment—visualise the site instead of using abstract drawings;

Most importantly, the game should be fun to play to provide incentive for players to engage.

Phase 2 took place from July to September 2022 to assess the feasibility of VR in community engagement, and four architecture students were invited for a preliminary test of the game on 13 August. According to findings of phase 1, several major upgrades of the game had been carried out. First, environment and Tools - we used an immersive digital twin of the site via a multiplayer webVR platform (Mozilla Hubs) with simple gaming controls (Figure 7), and players were asked to complete the game as a team. Second, content - A list of amenities was not provided, rather, only three amenity types were provided, and players could customise the VR game using physical hand drawings for more intuitive expression and creativity. Also, for this stage we focused the game on the configuration of the wet market as opposed to the entire public area, to reduce complexity of the problem. Third, cooperation and rules—The game was planned to be played 3 rounds, each round with a different pre-set rule that might help to promote different forms of cooperation. The rules were made simple to minimise complication and players had to cooperate to complete each round within 20 min; no dice rolling was needed. Also, communicative sessions were added pre- and post-gameplay, including warm-ups and discussions, and design goals were given for the main game to guide the players as a group.

The goal of the game was for players to work in teams of four and complete the design of the wet market area within the time limit, by deciding together what shops are needed. The game had been designed to be played in three rounds to promote and analyse different forms of collaborations. The first round was run without any pre-set rules. The second round was played with role-playing, where each player would pick one of the roles: Youth 青少年, older adult 長者, Architect 建築師, HKHS 房屋協會. The last round was a scenario game, where each team should decide on the proportion of shops according to different demographic combinations. A list of 12 design goals that references HKHS (2021b) missions were provided to help players plan their design agenda as a team.

The user interface (UI) was designed to replicate the JMC site at 1:1 scale, with brighter and cartoonized colours to attract engagement; while the three residential blocks were kept realistic to help resident players orient themselves in the scene (Figure 8). The language of the game interface and information board was in local dialect (Cantonese), and the gaming controls were designed as simple four-step operations:

1) Draw [畫]: draw shop banners, take a photo of it and upload to VR via mobile phones;

After analysing the existing layout and store sizes of the wet market, the site was modularised into four standard sizes and a total of twenty modules to retain the original shop proportions: three large modules (12 m * 12 m), two medium (10 m * 10 m), four small (8 m * 8 m), and eleven extra-small (4 m * 4 m). Three types of shops with colour coding were provided based on the classification of the Hong Kong Lunar New Year Fair provisioned by HKSAR (2018)—wet goods [濕貨攤位], dry goods [乾貨攤位], and food and beverages [快餐攤位]. Players could select boxes from each category according to their preferences, and the colour codes helped to visualise the proportion of amenity needs while adding playfulness to the VR scene. The boxes were designed with simple, basic furniture to enhance a sense of realness, but empty boxes were also provided for creative customisation by more advanced players.

The webVR game integrated physical and digital interfaces: hand drawings could be uploaded into the VR scene to facilitate customization and more intuitive expression for players (Figure 8). This functionality also helped teams to divide the game tasks between players who are good at hand drawing and VR gaming respectively, promoting collaboration and skills-sharing. It also helped older adult players who are less proficient at VR gaming to feel more empowered and engaged in the gameplay process.

The “PLAY DAY″ was designed in three chapters. Chapter 1 was “Warm-up and Ice-break!.” Three minigames in VR were designed to help players familiarise themselves with the UI and gaming controls, and to prepare them for the main game. The minigames were designed as an inter-team competition to help promote a sense of team spirit within the team, help players warm up to each other, and get used to interacting and engaging (Figure 9). This session was 20 min and included three main activities. First, “Virtual Race” [虛擬賽跑]—players learn to master skills of navigation. Second, “Virtual Lego” [虛擬樂高]—players familiarise with grabbing and moving boxes. Third, “Virtual Snapshots” [虛擬快相]—so that players understand how to upload photos and images to the VR space.

Chapter 2 was the “Main game: Wet Market DIY!”. Prior to designing the wet market, player teams were asked to pick from a range of predetermined design goals. According to the chosen goals, players should communicate and work as a team to complete the wet market design in VR. This session was 20 min per round, and played three rounds, a total of 60 min. The goals were:

youth development [促進青年發展],

Chapter 3 was “Discussions!”. During this stage, players shared their feedback on the game with the organisers. This session was 20 min.

On 22 August 2022, the phase 3 gameplay was conducted with 12 JMC users at the Jat Min Youth S.P.O.T.—a local community centre. The participants were divided into four groups, and each group worked with an architect or architecture student to co-create a wet market design. The game had been updated by improving its game objectives, participation tools, user experience and interface (UX/UI), design scope and site area, and gameplay processes.

To promote engagement, a winning mechanism was added: five badges were awarded to players who perform exceptionally, and the team with the most batches won the game. The batches were: Best Peacemaker [最佳和事佬]; Best Team Leader [最佳小隊長]; Best Innovator [最有創意獎]; Best Active Player [最活躍隊員]; Best Heart-warmer [最熱心助人]. Also, a certificate of appreciation was awarded to all players who successfully completed the game. In addition to the VR tools, traditional participatory design tools were provided—maps, layout plans, sticky notes, persona cards, and user journey maps. The list of design goals was updated with colour codes. In terms of UX/UI, more signages were added to indicate directions, key tower blocks and transit hubs. The design scope and site area had also been narrowed and simplified: the number of shops were reduced from 50 to 20 and three XL shops of 16 m*16 m were added to replace the XS shops. The types of shops were changed to basic needs [基本需求], lifestyle and interests [生活興趣], and community needs [社區需求].

The gameplay process was also adjusted. Instead of playing three rounds with roleplaying and scenario designs, only one round was played to allow more time for players to communicate and plan. Extra communication sessions were added pre- and post-game. For the former, a peer exercise with persona cards and user journey maps was used as ice-breaking; also, discussion time was given at the start of the game. For the latter, a presentation session was added to increase the sense of achievement, where players utilise VR tools to showcase their design outcome, exchange thoughts and suggestions. Also, an award ceremony and feedback session were added to celebrate and reflect on the co-creation process. During the gameplay, four guiding steps were provided to help players plan ahead: 1) goals setting [制定目標]: discuss amongst the team and set design goals for wet market revitalisation; 2) spatial distribution [空間分布]: indicate on the map the locations of key circulation corridors and community hotspots, e.g. entrances, exits, transit hubs, open areas, etc.; 3) shop ratio [店舖比例]: plan the proportion of shop types and sizes within limited spatial resources; 4) tasks division [分配工作]: identify each player’s strengths and interests, and cooperatively divide tasks within the team. Electronic questionnaires were given pre- and post-game, and during the minigames, a 3D questionnaire in VR were added to compare the survey results with e-questionnaires.

The players were recruited through a local community centre - nine JMC residents and 3 local community officers were recruited, together with 4 architects/students. The participants group consisted of six males and 10 females, with half of them being over 50 years old. During sign up, a brief questionnaire surveyed participants’ experience with videogame/VR and their understanding of Hong Kong public housing estates. Participants had varying levels of experience with the technologies—25% had much experience, while 37.5% had none. For the latter, almost two-thirds of the participants thought they knew public housing very well (Figure 11).

Electronic questionnaires were conducted pre- and post-event. The questionnaire was designed in three sections according to the three research questions. Section 1 collected data on resident’s satisfaction of the current wet market vs. co-created wet market. Section 2 collected data on how much has been learnt pre- and post-game. Section 3 collected data on their experience with VR technology. The complete questionnaire outcomes are documented in Appendix 1.

The results of Section 1 show that most participants are happier with the co-created outcome than with the current wet market design. 88.9% of the participants are very happy with the former, while only 33.3% are happy with the latter. Although half of them feel they had to make compromises duringa the co-creation process, 55.6% of the participants think that the co-created wet market design can satisfy their daily needs.

The results of Section 2 show that most players had learnt more about themselves as a community and the complexity of urban design problems. Before the game, 77.8% of the participants had never had any experience in urban design and planning; after the game, all participants felt that they had learned more about the difficulties and potential challenges. When asked if they knew their neighbours well, the figure increased from 55.6% to 88.9% after the game. Before the game, only 22.2% of the participants thought most people would want similar things as them, which means they did not feel as part of the majority. After the game, 77.8% found that most of the other people wanted similar things as them, although this could be due to the limited diversity amongst participants. When asked what types of goods or shops are most needed for the community, the options of “convenience stores and supermarkets” and “daily necessities” were chosen by most (77.8%), followed by “groceries” and “vegetables and meat” (66.7%). After the game, “convenience stores and supermarkets” grew even higher in demand (88.9%), and “health care” grew from 50% to 77.8%, ranking second. Some choices had been reduced to 0%, including “clothing,” “handmade products,” “stationery and toys,” “environmental products,” “skin care and makeup,” “pet supplies,” “computer and electronic appliances.” A larger and more diverse group of participants could yield more varied outcomes.

The results of Section 3 show a mixed experience with the VR tools. Although all the participants felt VR games increased their engagement with others, 88.9% of them classified themselves as “quite extroverted” even before the game. As for participatory methods, 88.9% generally enjoy doing questionnaires and the same amount of people thought the interactive game was more expressive, with 11.1% slightly disagreeing. 77.7% felt lost and disoriented in VR, while the same amount of people thought they usually have a good sense of direction. Although from the first three questions, it was not particularly evident that VR had helped in enhancing the participatory experience, the last question showed 88.9% of the participants strongly agreeing that VR helped them better understand the site and spaces.

The outcomes of the phase 2 and 3 games comprised a series of planning proposals for the JMC wet market, which can be evaluated in relation to the number of shop types, sizes, ratios, and locations. As shown in Table 1, a total of 73 shops were chosen by players.

When evaluating the chosen shop types, the three most popular ones were “grocery,” “pharmacy,” and “takeaway.” 26% of the chosen shops were related to groceries, indicating how residents prioritised basic needs during the game. 16.4% of shops were related to pharmacy and medical products, in which the older adult players have emphasised the necessity during the presentations. 11% were takeaway and kiosks, as the older adults expressed that it is inconvenient to cook for themselves. There is a relatively low demand for lifestyle and interest shops, such as department stores, sports, leisure and insurance, electronics and furniture, pets and lifestyle.

In relation to the shop sizes, a large proportion of the small and medium shops were chosen for groceries, and during the presentation, older adults stated that they want many choices of fresh products, showing a demand for diversifying consumer options. Large shops were mostly chosen for takeaways and kiosks, and the XL shops were mostly supermarkets. During the game, all players expressed the need for chained supermarkets, and explained that such shops can provide affordable goods, a diverse assortment of products, and sustain itself even with high rental prices. Some also chose XL for restaurants, which older adults explained how dim-sum and tea places are nice to spend time in and enjoy the air-conditioning. The shop type “others” included three community offices, a community centre, a hardware store, a $10 store, and a $8 store, mainly covering functions of affordable goods and community needs.

Figure 12 shows the game outcomes generated by the four player groups. The shop ratio and location can be identified through the colour coding: basic needs (pink), community needs (blue), and lifestyle and Interests (yellow). The ratios amongst these categories were chosen by the players during the game.

The respective badges were awarded to players at the end of the game. Five community officers who assisted in the running of the playday were invited to stand as an observer of the event, and make a decision which player to reward. During the group presentations, which lasted about 20–30 min, players reflected that rather than peace-making, participants reflected that perhaps “inclusion” 共融 was a more apparent quality that arose from the gameplay process, as no one fell into an argument. Although there were no signs that players were particularly motivated by the award batches during the game for their proactiveness, the award ceremony was vibrant and positive, with much clapping and cheering from the players. During the presentations, all groups chose to send an older adult player as presenter and an architecture student to assist the presentation. The presenters were not at all shy and generally quite spirited and willing to present their ideas, needs and designs (Figure 13).

In contrast to the presentations, in which the audience were quite active in shouting out comments, everyone was relatively quiet in the post-game discussion session. Amongst which, four main themes arose. First, participants mentioned that even though they acknowledged the design may not be implemented, they were grateful that there was a place of communication for them to express and think about their own needs. Second, they were appreciative of the team-play mechanism, during which they learnt how to collaborate and work together on a project. Third, they were pleased to have “tried new things,” especially in working with computers, but the VR component seems to not have met their expectation as they thought they would have been in headsets the entire time.

Fourth, most participants supposed that VR was difficult to operate. Some expressed it was hard to navigate and easy to get lost in the game, others said they are not familiar with the controls and needed more time to practise, as they were unsure whether it can be mastered quickly. There was also a comment on the size of the frames that were large and difficult to place objects in.

Finally, one of the community officers also contributed to the closing comments:

“[I] hope that you guys can organise more events like this, for residents to try to learn how to plan things, understand their own hopes, and how the wet market can develop, maybe it's not possible to realise, but at least [residents] have tried to express themselves and tried to design something, most importantly to learn about team spirits, and how to collaborate and help each other … also, most importantly there are sponsors for event venues.”