# How to catch prospective use? A comparative study of Virtual Environment Movie and Guided Imaginary for projecting future users in a public space

Maniga Elodie<fnref n="1" />, Adelé Sonia<fnref n="1" />*, Cahour Béatrice<fnref n="2" />

## Abstract

Focusing on the design of a public space, we propose a methodological contribution to integrate possible future users to studies in prospective ergonomics. Our objective is to establish a rigorous protocol for comparing two methods of projecting potential usage. First, a projection interview based on a virtual environment movie and second, a Guided Imaginary Projection interview. We sought to determine to what extent these two methods provide participants with the ability to live a "quasi-experience" (Hoarau & Cahour, 2021) of the space. This "quasi-experience" is measured by a questionnaire inspired by the concepts of presence and absorption and by the analysis of the embodiment level of the discourse produced during the interviews (Allinc et al., 2019), from embodied to general discourse. The results show that while the two methods produce similar results in terms of the level of projection experience, the virtual environment movie projection produces significantly more general discourse.

**Keywords** Prospective ergonomics, public space, guided imaginary projection, virtual environment movie projection, comparison

## Practitioner summary

The aim of this study is to compare, on similar samples, the ability of a non-immersive virtual environment movie and an imagined visit to project the probable future users of a space. The comparison is based on a questionnaire inspired by the concept of presence and an analysis of the rate of embodied speech produced.

<footnote n="1">¹ COSYS-GRETTIA, Univ. Gustave Eiffel, IFSTTAR, 14-20 bd Newton, F-77447 Marne-la-Vallée cedex 2, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CNRS Telecom Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris – UMR CNRS 9217, i3 Institut Interdisciplinaire de l'Innovation, SES department, 91120 Palaiseau</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author – sonia.adele@univ-eiffel.fr</footnote>
# 1. Introduction - prospective ergonomics and projecting future users

As part of the redevelopment of a river and port area in the city of Rimini (Belaroussi et al., 2023), we test two types of user projection methods with the aim of making a methodological contribution to prospective ergonomics studies. The objective is to gather the lived experience of likely future users of the area prior to any redevelopment, which we call a "quasi-experience" that will be defined later on (Hoarau & Cahour, 2021).

Prospective ergonomics proposes to apply the ergonomics knowledge to the design of the future. Brangier & Robert (2014, p.4) define prospective ergonomics as "a form of ergonomic intervention which involves anticipating future needs, uses and behaviours or constructing future needs with a view to creating processes, products or services which are well adapted to them".

Our study, which aims to anticipate users' future needs and uses related to public spaces, is the opportunity to assess and compare two ways of helping likely future users to envision the future. We consider that we provide prospective ergonomics with new tools. More specifically, we focused on two ways of projecting future users in a situation: a movie with a virtual environment, and imagination through an interview technique called the Guided Imaginary Projection (GIP) (Allinc et al., 2019; Cahour et al., 2021b). GIP has been developed with the aim "to support users in mentally projecting themselves into the experience of using an emergent [or future] service" (Allinc et al., 2019, p. 1340). These methods can help overcome a common barrier to involving possible future users in the design process: the challenge of imagining their needs or understanding the design before implementation due to limited knowledge or unimagined needs (Loup-Escande et al., 2014).

Prospective ergonomics methods are classified into three categories according to the pillar to which they refer (Robert & Brangier, 2019): ergonomics, creativity or prospective (Brangier & Robert, 2014). The first pillar corresponds to traditional ergonomics methods such as task analysis, interviews, observations, focus groups, etc. The second pillar corresponds to methods that are traditionally used by design to generate ideas, such as brainstorming, analogies, metaphor transfer, scenario building and role-playing. The last pillar is associated with the foresight discipline, such as trend anticipation statistics and scenario building. The authors also add the numerous methods for gathering user needs. These methods are verbal or non-verbal, descriptive or projective, etc. The GIP and virtual environment movie project the individuals in future innovative situations. This projection can be used, based on interviews, to explore the sources of comfort/discomfort felt in the future situation, and/or as a support for the generation of ideas to improve the service or system studied.

Projective methods aim to help people to think about the future and project themselves into the future. This category encompasses a range of interview methods, such as needs and ideation interviews, initially employed with experts by Brangier et al. (2019) but also used with regular and lead users by Martin et al. (2021). On shorter-term projections (i.e. anticipating future work situations for soon-to-be-implemented technologies), we can also consider activity simulation methods. These allow individuals to project themselves into a future situation using a particular technology such as voice control for the smart home (Elias et al., 2019). In this case, a support based on prescriptive scenarios is presented to employees in order to role-play a future situation (Van Belleghem, 2017). Still on the issue of projecting future users, Cahour and Forzy (2009) used a projection based on a video of a person driving with a new driving assistance system and compared its effect on trust and perceived efficiency with more classic written presentations of the system use. They show that the movie lowers trust and perceived efficiency beforehand but helps the users to explore more during usage. Moreover, research efforts are moving towards design-fiction with the aim of anchoring the context of the future activity envisaged (Bagousse et al., 2023). Using the
imagery and objects of science fiction, this method aims to help participants in a creative idea-
generation task to produce use scenarios for alternative futures by removing obstacles to future
thinking. Projecting participants into use, by visualising scenes or using their imagination, allows
them to almost experience the situation rather than only having information about it. Let us take a
closer look at the two methods we have chosen.

1.1. The two methods compared: Guided Imaginary Projection (GIP) and Virtual Environment Movie Projection (VEMP)

The technique of Guided Imaginary Projection (Allinc et al., 2019) draws inspiration from the “guided daydream” technique rooted in psychoanalysis (Desoille, 1965). This technique requires an atmosphere conducive to relaxation and contemplation of mental dynamic images. The aim of guided imaginary projection (GIP) developed by Allinc et al. (2019) is to immerse participants in an "imaginary reality" so that they have a "quasi-experience" of the service (Hoarau & Cahour, 2021, p.124, translated from French). We also propose to talk about “quasi-experience” in reference to the "lived experience". This concept is defined by Cahour et al. (2016 p.9) as "the stream of actions, thoughts (e.g. interpretations, expectations, assessments, etc.), emotions, and sensory perceptions (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, etc.) occurring in a given situation at a given time, of which the actor is aware or can be made aware, either during the activity or subsequently via a process of recollection". The "quasi-experience" must be as close to this stream as possible, but in imagination. The use of the term emphasises the multidimensional and embodied aspect of an experience lived through thought. In this quasi-experience, we imagine situations, in which we act, think, perceive different elements, and feel emotions. As stated by Cahour et al. (2021b), "the Guided Imaginary Projection methodology aims to have future users 'live' an experience of the service in an imaginary way" (p.7), "as if they were using it" (p.2). According to Allinc et al. (2019, p.1), this technique helps to gather information about the likely subjective experience with “an emergent service, i.e. an innovative service for which the scarcity of actual users impedes any study of real uses”. After having chosen an open scenario, participants fill in the gaps left by the service presentation with their own way of behaving, feeling and thinking. They take part in a specific interview, focusing on describing their experience.

In their study, Allinc et al. (2019) compared the guided imaginary projection with a traditional interview, without imaginary projection. They showed that imaginary projection helps participants to produce more ideas. Guided Imaginary Projection has already been used to study future mobility for example, in dynamic ridesharing (Allinc et al., 2019) and robotic-taxis (Cahour et al., 2021b; Hoarau & Cahour, 2021) in order to identify the sources of comfort and discomfort associated with these modes of transport. Bonneviot (2022) used Guided Imaginary Projection differently for priming future-oriented thinking prior to an interview study aimed at generating creative ideas for fostering interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles. In her study, she projected the participants in street crossing situations in a city with automated vehicles. Guided Imaginary Projection has yet to be applied to future public spaces. Therefore, we use it with the same objective as Allinc et al. (2019) for prospecting future needs. They proposed the following procedure:

1/ Introduce the service by presenting images or photos along with oral explanations, and address any questions from participants. Then, assist participants in identifying a specific scenario where they envision using this service, such as commuting from home to work or visiting a leisure destination, based on what seems most realistic to them.
2/ Prepare for the projection by inviting them to close their eyes and breathe calmly by imagining a comfortable place.

3/ Guide the participants towards the choice of a precise situation of use, to project themselves completely into it. For example, if they evoke different possible scenarios (if X, if Y...), the researcher invites them to choose one possibility and project themselves completely into it. The interviewer guides them to fill in the gaps in their open scenario of the use with their own imagination and to describe their actions, thoughts, perceptions and emotions. For that, the interviewer uses prompts from the explicitation interview (Vermersch, 1994). This interview technique is centred on the lived experience of a specific situation with non-inductive questions. The aim is to help the participants to visualise and precisely verbalise their imaginary world, without imposing on them the exploration of a particular dimension of the imagined experience.

Virtual environment (in our case a movie) is another way of projecting the probable future users into a situation so that they can describe their experience in that situation and inform the researcher. Virtual reality has already been used in architecture, for example, in visualisation (Atwa et al., 2019) and interaction with users (Milovanovitch et al., 2017). The intention of using virtual environments is linked to improving the designer's or the user's representation of the designed space (Lindgren et al., 2021) or providing a more natural interaction with the designed space to enrich ideation (Milovanovitch et al., 2017). Virtual environments are also seen as a good way of bringing together the designer or decision-maker and the users of a space (Saleh & Nassar, 2011). Landscape virtual reality makes it possible to display scenes that are non-existent; these can be represented as static, animated, or interactive, and can be immersive or not immersive, e.g. when they are displayed on desktop screens. More specifically, virtual reality has been used to assess the role of noise in the audio-visual design of a public space in need of renovation (Jiang et al., 2018; Sanchez et al., 2017) with more or less immersive devices (e.g. a helmet that depicts movement without being controlled by the participant or a computer screen with movement via the mouse). In both cases, the measurement of experience was based on questionnaires, in particular about global pleasantness or likeliness of some details of the environment. The same protocol was used to assess the walkability of spaces (Liao et al., 2022; Nakamura, 2021). In a literature review, Portman et al. (2015) highlighted gaps in the use of virtual environment for landscape assessment. "This impression came from the common questions raised, i.e., how do we create reality and how do we judge it? What are the advantages of VR and when is it worth the investment?" (p. 382).

**1.2. Measuring the level of presence/absorption: existing constructs and measurement methods**

The notion of presence (in reality telepresence) was developed to understand the phenomena that occur when humans are confronted with virtual reality. However, it has also been applied in less immersive contexts such as high-definition television (Lessiter et al., 2001).

According to Skarbez et al. (2017, for an analytical review), many works in this field refer to Gibson's notion of presence, which is defined as the sense of being in an environment. It is a subjective feeling mediated by our senses and our mental processes. Gibson also agrees that "the reality of experience is grounded in action" (Flach & Holden, 1998). For this reason, the ability to act is often one of the factors that enables presence. Slater (2018) is in line with Gibson's definition of presence, which he defines as the illusion of being there. He explained that nobody thinks that the virtual world is the real world, but it is a perceptual (not cognitive) illusion of reality or plausibility (Slater, 2009). Despite the bias of the illusion, the person perceives and reacts as if the virtual was reality (Slater, 2018). Interest in virtual reality extends beyond this mediated environment, with some research exploring imaginary environments. Sas and O'Hare (2003), for example, are interested in the cognitive factors
underlying presence such as absorption, creative imagination, and empathy. For them, "presence is a psychological phenomenon, through which one's cognitive processes are oriented toward another world, either technologically mediated or imaginary, to such an extent that he or she experiences mentally the state of being (there), similar to one physical reality, together with an imperceptible shifting of focus of consciousness to the proximal stimulus located in that other world" (p. 523). Another concept is interesting for our objective, which is absorption, traditionally used to understand hypnotic susceptibility. It "is interpreted as a disposition for having episodes of 'total' attention that fully engage one's representational (i.e., perceptual, enactive, imaginative, and ideational) resources" (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974, p. 268). It can be used in different contexts, such as "watching a movie, reading a book, or experiencing virtual reality" (Baños et al., 1999, p. 144). A last concept, transportation, is used for the narrative world as an equivalent of presence in the virtual reality world (Gerrig, 2018, cited by Skarbez et al., 2017; Green & Brock, 2000). It is a "mental process, an integrative melding of attention, imagery, and feelings" (p. 701).

Presence, which is seen as a *quale*<fnref n="1" /> (Skarbez et al., 2017), can be measured using objective indicators (behavioural, physiological measures) or subjective indicators (self-evaluation) (see Hein et al., 2018 for a review). For Slater (2009), the measurement of presence implies the measurement of the "feeling of being here", the extent to which the virtual world becomes more real or true than reality, and the fact of having really visited the virtual place. These indicators are included in the Slater-Usoh-Steed questionnaire (Usoh et al., 2000). Several questionnaires are proposed (see Skarbez et al., 2017 for a review). They share a spatial dimension with questions such as "Please rate your sense of being there in the office place", "When you think back about your experience, do you think of the office space more as images that you saw, or more as somewhere that you visited?" (Usoh et al., 2000), "I had a sense of being in the scenes displayed", "I felt I was visiting the places in the displayed environment" (Lessiter et al., 2001). The ITC-Sense of presence inventory, focuses on users' experience of diverse media (TV, large view format such as IMAX, etc.) (Lessiter et al., 2001). In a 2004 article, Slater questioned the use of questionnaires to capture the feeling of presence.

In their work in prospective ergonomics, Allinc et al. (2019) used the analysis of verbalisations during Guided Imaginary Projection interviews to assess the quality of the absorption of the participants. During the quasi-experience, they asked the participants to describe their thoughts, perceptions, actions and emotions. They measured their projection in the quasi-experience through a discursive analysis (ibidem, p. 4-5), by categorizing and measuring the occurrence of three types of discourse that they define and exemplify, in this case imaginary-embodied discourse, imaginary-analytical discourse and general discourse. The more the discourse is embodied, the more the participants are absorbed in the quasi-experience, and the more the discourse is general, the lesser the participants are absorbed in the quasi-experience.

Prospective ergonomics has not yet considered how to measure the quality of the projection of users into a narrative, virtual or imaginary world. It is important to create and test different methods to measure it, on the basis of existing concepts and methods, bearing in mind that all these concepts have been used in a variety of contexts and not just to measure the processes at work when confronted with virtual reality.

### 1.3. Ability to representing/experiencing the future

Research into prospective ergonomics has recently shown the essential role played by individuals' ability to think about the future in the results obtained (Colin et al., 2022). According to these

<footnote n="1">¹ In philosophy of mind, the subjective content of the experience of a mental state. It can be translated into English as "raw feeling".</footnote>
authors, mentally representing a possible future involves episodic and semantic memory because incoming information is combined with stored information to build simulations of the future. There are many obstacles to overcome when thinking about the future: temporal distance, memory limits, cognitive biases such as psychological inertia, hindsight bias and unrealistic optimism (Nelson et al., 2013). Future thinking would be linked to cognitive abilities and personality traits, which would make it possible to test participants to recruit them, or to adapt the priming task to the participants. The authors identify seven tests for measuring future thinking skills. (1) The Memory and Temporal Experience Questionnaire aims at identifying episodic impairment by asking about past and future personal events. In (2) the Future Thinking Task, (3) the Adapted Autobiographical interview, and (4) the Experiential index, the interview is used to ask participants to elaborate about the future in order to assess those elaborations on different criterion such as fluency, specificity, and quantity of details. (5) In the Functions of Future Thinking Scale, researchers aim to know why participants use future-thinking. (6) The Children's Future Thinking Questionnaire assesses the future-thinking abilities in order to check for an optimal development (saving behaviour, prospective memory, episodic foresight, planning and delaying of gratification). (7) With the Priming Manipulation Checks Scale, Frederiks et al. (2019) deal with prospective thinking which they define with the terms of Gilbert and Wilson (2007, p.1352) as the "ability to pre-experience the future by simulating it in our minds". Prospective thinking is one of the three future-oriented cognitive processes they apply to the generation of new venture ideas (with contrefactual thinking and perspective taking). In this context, to check whether their priming of the three future-oriented cognitive processes was successful, the authors developed an 11-item scale to measure how frequently the participants experienced certain types of thoughts while performing the priming task.

More broadly, we believe that the ability to immerse oneself mentally and physically in hypothetical scenarios with rich sensory modalities (visual, auditory, tactile) and emotions, is essential for creating quasi-experiential sensations through imagination. Some researchers link imagination, viewed as an individual aptitude with mental imagery, and the sense of presence in virtual reality (Burdea & Coiffet, 2003). This link has received limited attention in research. Mental imagery can be defined as "the capacity to voluntarily generate multisensory mental images on the basis of information stored in long-term memory" (Iachini et al., 2019). Mental imagery vividness refers to the individual capacity of evoking clear, colourful, and well-defined multisensory mental images. One study established a connection between the score on the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973) and a presence questionnaire (IPQ, Schubert, 2003), concluding that multisensory mental image capacity has an impact on the feeling of presence in a virtual reality scenario (Iachini et al., 2019). The more individuals reported vivid mental images of personal and common memories, such as a dear person, a familiar shop or a country scene, the more they felt spatially present in the virtual world.

## 1.4. Research question

Our aim is to evaluate different methods for obtaining the best quality of projection in a future situation, to collect data from likely future users. Guided Imaginary Projection (GIP) and Virtual Environment Movie Projection (VEMP) appear to be effective methods of gathering information valuable for shaping future design decisions. However, their cost and prerequisites are very different. For GIP we show drawings of the future space; sketching takes very little time and requires few skills, whereas creating a virtual environment, even if it is not immersive, is time-consuming, requires software with associated costs and development skills.

While one might assume that the virtual environment movie would excel at projecting individuals into future situations, there is potential for a method aiding multisensory mental representation
through imaginary projection to yield equally satisfactory results at a reduced cost. This is particularly relevant because movies primarily engage participants visually and further restrict the flow of the moment spent in the space. In other words, the participant explores the space in the order imposed by the film.

The research question is therefore the following: What are the differences between the guided imaginary projection and the virtual environment movie projection, qualitatively and quantitatively?

Through this study, we aim to contribute to the collection of data from likely future users of an object, service or place that is neither designed nor implemented in reality. In doing so, we contribute to the methodological development of prospective ergonomics.

## 2. Material and methods

To compare these two methods, we administer one of them to two similar samples, that is with the same gender and the same age distribution (cf. 2.3), and the same habits to reflect on the future with vivid mental imagery (cf. 2.2.1). We then analyse the type of speech produced and the answer to a questionnaire inspired by the concept of presence and absorption. A successful projection into the situation would manifest as “embodied verbalisation” during the process (Allinc et al., 2019), and a high score on the questionnaire.

### 2.1. Procedure (Figure 1)

After an initial phase carried out by email, which aimed at qualifying the participants with a sociodemographic and future projection habits questionnaire, assigning them to a group and obtaining their informed consent, each selected participant was welcomed and given a presentation of the experiment.

For all the participants, the first phase of the projection consists of gaining an overall understanding of the urban regeneration project (where it is located, how big the area is, etc.) and then working with the researcher to define a personalised usage scenario for the area. More specifically, this involves defining the conditions under which people would like to visit the docks in Rimini: with whom, at what time of day, for what purpose? 15 participants then followed the projection with the Virtual Environment movie (VEMP) and 15 with the Guided Imaginary Projection (GIP) based on sketches (Figure 2). The duration of the two projections is close; we obtained on average 18 minutes for the VEMP and 20 minutes for the GIP.

Finally, immediately after the projection, everyone completed a questionnaire inspired by the concept of presence and absorption to describe the quasi-experience in quantitative terms and take part in a semi-structured interview to find out their needs and opinions on the area and its use.
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Experimental design</figcaption></figure>

The overall duration for both methods was 45 minutes on average.

## 2.2. Material

### 2.2.1. The Future Projection Habits Questionnaire (Appendix 1)

The aim of this scale is to find out how participants usually think about the future in order to build similar samples for the two methods tested. Insofar as we wanted to give participants a quasi-experience, we included items relating to the fact of having sensory perceptions in future-oriented thoughts in the respondent characterisation questionnaire. None of the existing questionnaires we considered seemed particularly suitable for anticipating skills for the projection in a future situation. We therefore edited pre-existing questionnaires and added questions. The Future Projection Habits Questionnaire consists of six questions, one of which is inspired by the Priming Manipulation Checks Scale of Frederiks et al. (2019) (Q1). Another question, which is divided in two parts, is inspired by the Betts' questionnaire upon mental imagery (Betts, 1909), asking about the presence of visual, olfactory or auditory modalities when thinking about the future (Q2 A & B). We have added three questions about (1) the perception of their relatives on the ability of the participant to imagine future situations (Q3) (2) the frequency with which respondents imagine situations 10 years and more ahead in their personal lives (Q4), and (3) the fact of working in a job related to prospective thinking (Q5). The topics covered three descriptors of future thinking events identified by Colin et al. (2022): the vividness of future situations (general and/or personal), the presence of sensory modalities in representations of the future (visual, auditory and/or olfactory), the temporal distance with the imagined future situations. Participants express their opinion on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Never; 5 = Always).

### 2.2.2. Visual media for the VEMP and the GIP

The virtual environment movies were adapted from a design produced as part of another project (Belaroussi et al., 2023) with the software TwinMotion (Epic Games). The first one-minute film is a global view of the docks. The two other one-minute films present a first-person view as if the
individual is walking on the right and left side of the river. All the films include moving cars, pedestrians, cyclists and birds. The movies are shown on a desktop computer.

The six sketches used for the GIP were drawn by hand by the researcher. The first sketch shows the space as a whole, with subsequent sketches focusing on specific areas of interest of the docks with a first-person view. They show cars, pedestrians, cyclists and birds in a posture indicating movement. The sketches are pinned on the wall throughout the experiment.

Particular care has been taken to ensure that situations are comparable for the two medias (same number of people and animals present, no sound in the virtual environment).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. On the left: sketch of one of the areas presented to the participants during the GIP. On the right: freeze frame of the movie presented to the participants during the VEMP</figcaption></figure>

### 2.2.3. Projection interviews

The projection interviews were conducted while watching the movie or while imagining the visit, in the same way in both experimental conditions.

The researcher helped the participant to choose a situation. "Who are you with?" Then, the participants were guided toward the choice of a precise situation. For example, if they said "If it's sunny, I will... but if it's cold, I will..., the researcher said "Could you choose one of these situations?". Then, she asked participants to describe their actions, thoughts, perceptions and emotions throughout their visit of the site. The questions used were inspired by the explicitation interview (Vermersch, 1994), for instance: "What is happening for you at this moment?", "Are you thinking or feeling something now?" "Are you seeing or hearing something?".

During the projection with the virtual environment movie (VEMP), the participants can stop the movie, see it several times, or rewind. They mostly viewed it twice. The film imposes an order of the visit, starting on one bank in a particular direction and then moving on to the other bank in the opposite direction of the river.

In the case of Guided Imaginary Projection (GIP), the participants are first invited to take a moment to sit comfortably, relax and close their eyes if they wish. They are asked to specify when they are ready to start. This step takes, on average, three minutes. Participants are then totally free to decide which location they want to visit first, and then decide the order of their visit.

### 2.2.4. Questionnaire of presence/absorption feelings (see: Appendix 2)

None of the existing questionnaires we consulted were suitable to evaluate the feelings experienced by our participants during the projection. Most of them are designed to assess the
presence/absorption in virtual reality. In our case, either the participants live an imaginary moment, or they see a virtual environment movie. We were therefore obligated to create a questionnaire that could be adapted to these two cases. As a result, it was not relevant, for example, to measure social presence or self-presence, or even coherence (Skarbez et al., 2017). To construct our questionnaire, we drew inspiration from existing presence questionnaires and, in particular, from their common features, namely the feeling of physical presence (Lessiter et al., 2001; Usoh et al., 2000), to which we have added the dimensions of involvement proposed by the concept of absorption (Baños et al., 1999; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974), realism of the environment and emotions/sensations generated, in accordance with the concept of transportation (Green & Brock, 2000) and our theoretical background. The 12 questions used were adapted to suit a situation involving the use of a public place and to suit the two projection methods used. The dimensions measured are participant involvement, spatial presence ("sense of being there" for Slater, 2018), emotional and sensorial dimensions and the realism of the environment. The participants position themselves on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (1= Not at all; 7 = A lot).

### 2.2.5. Post projection semi-structured interview

This last phase focuses on analysing user needs as well as their evaluation and perceptions of the area. We questioned (1) what they thought of the area, (2) the problems they encountered, (3) the positive and negative points, and (4) the improvements to be incorporated into the Rimini port redevelopment project.

### 2.3. Sample

As Rimini is a tourist city, we chose French participants in order to make it easier to conduct the interviews in the authors' own language. 30 participants were recruited by email from a participatory science mailing list and by direct contact. They were aged between 18 and 65. Nineteen were women and 11 were men. They were divided evenly between the two experimental groups (GIP and VEMP) on the basis of the initial questionnaire about their future-thinking habits. The GIP group comprises 10 women and 5 men. The VEMP group comprises 9 women and 6 men. The same age distribution was observed, with 5 participants aged between 18 and 25, 5 participants aged between 25 and 45 and 5 participants aged between 45 and 65 in each group. The two groups had the same median (18); the distribution was not normal on the future projection habits questionnaire.

### 2.4. Data analysis procedure

The scores on the questionnaires (Future Projection Habits and Presence/absorption feeling) are the sum of responses to the items that composed them.

The content of the discourse during the projection interviews is analysed according to the coding grid proposed by Allinc (2018) and Allinc et al. (2019): general, imaginary-analytical or imaginary-embodied discourse (Table 1). General discourse indicates that the subject is not absorbed in the imaginary world of a specific situation, but makes general statements. Analytical discourse indicates that the subject is imagining different possible scenarios, in a posture that is more analytical than embodied. Embodied speech indicates that participants are imagining themselves in the scene, absorbed in it to the point of being able to feel emotions and sensations (as in a dream). Participants, when engaging in general discourse, exhibit low absorption in the future situation. However, when they engage in analytical discourse, they show partial absorption, while embodied discourse indicates high absorption in the situation (Allinc et al., 2019).
<table><caption>Table 1. Coding categories for the projection interviews (Allinc & al, 2019).</caption><thead><tr><th>General discourse</th><th>Imaginary-analytical discourse</th><th>Imaginary-embodied discourse</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Use of general terms such as "I tend to", "usually", "generally". Comments on the way one thinks<br>Self-reflective remarks "I'm the kind of person who...".</td><td>Marks of uncertainty: "if", "perhaps", "it depends", "depending".<br>Verbs such as "I think that", "I imagine that".<br>Future or conditional verbs indicating intentions.</td><td>Use of action verbs in real situations or verbs in the present tense: "I am going to...", "I'm currently..."</td></tr><tr><td>Example: I don't necessarily pay much attention to the cars, as we're usually chatting... (VEMP 7)</td><td>Example: We might go and find a watering hole to cool off, depending on the weather. (VEMP 5)</td><td>Example: I hear the sound of the waves, the birds and people talking. (GIP 1)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The verbatim were cross-coded by two coders in order to reach inter-judge agreement. Then the number of words in each discourse category was translated into a percentage based on the total number of words in the interviews.

The content of the *post-experience interviews* was thematically coded by building up the themes as the interviews were coded (Table 2). The themes and sub-themes used are as follows.

<table><caption>Table 2. Coding categories for the post-experience semi-structured interviews.</caption><tr><td>Overall assessment</td><td>Global satisfaction<br>Aesthetics of the place<br>Ambiance</td></tr><tr><td>Leisure and activities</td><td>Sociability<br>Entertainment</td></tr><tr><td>Accessibility, mobility, safety</td><td>Accessibility<br>Pedestrian, cyclist and motorised mobility<br>Safety</td></tr><tr><td>Improvements</td><td>Modifying spaces<br>Adding equipment or furniture</td></tr></table>

### 3. Results

#### 3.1. Analysis of the discourse during the quasi-experience according to the projection technique used

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
Figure 3. Distribution of the different types of speech by participant according to the projection method used (the complete data can be found in Appendix 3).

The histograms reveal asymmetrical data (Figure 3). In addition, the samples are small (n=15). For these reasons, we consider a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney U test) to compare the groups.

With regards to general discourse, the descriptive statistics show that, in our sample, the proportion of general discourse is higher in the VEMP group (Mdn=24) than in the GIP group (Mdn=15). The Mann-Whitney test allows us to generalise this result (U=57.0, p=.02). We also carry out a Lehmann-Hodges estimation of the medians difference between the groups (IC at 95%: [2 ; 19]), corresponding to a significant effect of the method (d=9). It is therefore possible to conclude from our data that the projection method had an effect on the quantity of general discourse produced; it is more frequent with the VEMP.

In addition, the descriptive statistics show that the proportion of *analytical discourse* is higher in the GIP group (Mdn=51) than in the VEMP group (Mdn=47). However, the Mann-Whitney test does not allow us to generalise this result (U=137.5, p=.305). It is therefore impossible to conclude from our data that the projection method had any effect on the quantity of analytical discourse produced.

Finally, our data shows that the proportion of *embodied discourse* is higher in the VEMP group (Mdn=33) than in the GIP group (Mdn= 30). However, the Mann-Whitney test does not allow us to generalise this result (U=116.0, p=.902). It is therefore impossible to conclude from our data that the projection method had any effect on the quantity of embodied discourse produced.

Globally we can say that the discourse during the projection shows a similar degree of absorption with the two methods, except that we find more general discourse with the VEMP than with the GIP.

## 3.2. Presence/absorption feelings

<table><caption>Table 3. Score to the presence/absorption scale scores according to the projection method used.</caption><thead><tr><th>Subjects</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th><th>12</th><th>13</th><th>14</th><th>15</th><th>Median</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>VEMP</th><td>63</td><td>79</td><td>74</td><td>73</td><td>61</td><td>76</td><td>70</td><td>68</td><td>74</td><td>77</td><td>51</td><td>69</td><td>69</td><td>67</td><td>66</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><th>GIP</th><td>66</td><td>69</td><td>65</td><td>67</td><td>55</td><td>70</td><td>66</td><td>71</td><td>72</td><td>68</td><td>69</td><td>74</td><td>64</td><td>72</td><td>62</td><td>68</td></tr></tbody></table>

The histograms reveal asymmetrical data (Table 3). In addition, the samples are small (n=15). For these reasons, we consider the Mann-Whitney U test to analyse the difference between groups. Concerning presence/absorption, our sample shows that this is similar in the VEMP group (Mdn= 69) and in the GIP group (Mdn=68). The Mann-Whitney test is logically not significant (U=86.5, p=.280).

## 3.3. Relations between the different scores

The future projection habits score was statistically positively related to the presence/absorption feelings score (r=.56, p=.01) and to the amount of embodied discourse produced (r=.42, p=.05). The links with the other types of discourse were negative but not significant. We were unable to identify any significant correlation between the presence/absorption feeling score and the type of discourse produced.

## 3.4. Results to the post-experience interview: information gained with chosen methodologies

The results obtained with the two methods about how the participants perceive the future area and how it could be improved are similar. The number of ideas obtained is similar in each group for each sub-theme (Table 4).
<table><caption>Table 4. Number of different ideas suggested by the participants in each group.</caption><thead><tr><th>Theme</th><th>Sub-theme</th><th>GIP group</th><th>VEMP group</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Overall assessment</td><td>Global satisfaction</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetics of the place</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Ambiance</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Leisure and activities</td><td>Sociability</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Entertainment</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Accessibility, mobility, safety</td><td>Accessibility</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Pedestrian, cyclist and motorised mobility</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Safety</td><td>4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Improvements</td><td>Modifying spaces</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Adding equipment or furniture</td><td>7</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

As the content of the post-projection discourse was not the central topic of this article, and the themes addressed and their frequency are very similar between the methods, we have chosen to illustrate only one theme. With regard to the *ambiance of the area*, participants in the VEMP group emphasised that the area is a little narrow, particularly if there are a lot of people (2 occurrences), requires detours (1), offers a variety of activities for all audiences (6), elicits a positive feeling (5) and makes one want to go there (3). The participants in the GIP group exhibited similar reactions, albeit with slight variations in occurrence. They emphasised that the area is a little narrow, especially if there are a lot of people (1), allows a variety of activities for all audiences (4), lacks shade (1), makes one feel good (9) and makes one want to go there (1).

At the end of this section, we have opted to present select results that demonstrate the insights gained from projecting participants into future situations using either GIP or VEMP.

The place is considered to be satisfactory, beautiful, simple and comfortable. The participants also felt that it is friendly, despite a lack of activities, particularly water activities. There was also a lack of play areas for children and picnic areas. Despite the relatively easy access, participants noted a number of limitations, such as the lack of pedestrian crossings, the lack of separation between walkable and cycleable areas, and the lack of safety at the edge of the quay and of signage. They would like to see this space evolve by adding more greenery and shade, more public furniture (benches, deckchairs, bins, fountains), toilets, shops (particularly with indoor areas in case of rain) and activities. The descriptions obtained during the post-projection interviews are particularly numerous, rich and "embodied". They seem to indicate that the participants did indeed have a quasi-experience in this space: "I feel good there" (GIP 3), "I like it because the place is exposed, it's sunny" (GIP 13), "The atmosphere we feel seems to be festive" (GIP 15). "It's quite calm" (VEMP 6). "The environment gives me a feeling of security" (VEMP 7). "Yes, especially as I came by bike, it's nice to have a place where I can put it and keep an eye on it." (GIP 12). "Add some free-access terraces, because I can see myself having a picnic" (GIP 14).

## 4. Discussion

For gathering rich information about future situations, it is important to take some time to project people in this future situation to be sure that they have some kind of lived experience of this situation (using a new mode of transport, visiting a future area, using a future technology, etc.). Our aim was here to use a rigorous protocol to compare two projection methods in terms of their ability to immerse likely future users in a quasi-experience. This quasi-experience enables us to gather
precise and rich information about their needs, feelings and uses in a situation that does not exist. More specifically, we compared a visit to the future site using a movie of a virtual environment (VEMP) with an imaginary visit using the guided imaginary projection method, both of which were accompanied by interviews using the prompts of the explicitation interview (Vermersch, 1994). In line with the doubts expressed by Portman et al. (2015), we felt that it was interesting to test the usefulness of a virtual environment that can be very costly to project likely future users in a situation, compared to an imaginary visit. While we have tested these methods on a case of a port area, it is quite conceivable to consider applying the same methodologies to a wide range of future situations in everyday personal or professional life. Our results confirm that it is possible to obtain rich information by projecting the participants into a usage scenario based on a precise situation and using appropriate prompts. Using an appropriate interview method, participants evoke emotions and perceptions for a situation they have not actually experienced. More than just increasing the level of knowledge of potential future users (Loup-Escande et al., 2014), we propose a method that leads them to acquire experience by projecting themselves into a future situation, enabling them to develop rich usage scenarios and identify instrumental and non-instrumental needs. While knowledge can be obtained through explanations or documentation, only projection in future situations provides a quasi-experience (Cahour & Forzy, 2009).

The results obtained do not allow us to suspect many differences between the two projection methods, the VEMP and the GIP, in their ability to enable the participants to project themselves into use. With both methods they project themselves more or less at the same level and can identify future needs as well as various avenues for improvement concerning the development of this port area. Nevertheless, we were able to show that a projection using a virtual environment movie was significantly more likely to result in "general discourse" than GIP. This general discourse is of less interest when we are trying to implement a user-centred approach, which aims to take into account the aesthetic, emotional and practical needs of future users based on embodied information. In addition to requiring greater expertise, investment of resources, and time, virtual environment movie projection (VEMP) may elicit more general verbalisations compared to imaginary projection in our specific case of urban redevelopment. For this reason, we are supporting the guided imaginary projection for prospective ergonomics in appropriate situations. We believe that this technique is highly capable of projecting individuals into situations where multi-sensoriality and the diversity of the dimensions of the lived experience are important. Nevertheless, it will certainly not be able to compete with highly-developed simulators capable of reproducing the bodily sensations associated with an activity (e.g. high level driving simulators). We should add that, despite its low cost compared to virtual environment, a certain number of conditions must be met to guarantee the effectiveness of the method. The participant has to be able to relax and possibly agree to close his eyes. The way of questioning the participants is also very specific and must be mastered by the researcher. We must point out, however, that the way virtual reality has been used in this study remains fairly basic. It was a non-immersive virtual environment, in which the participant was not free to move and was not able to interact, only to rewind and watch the movie several times. Other studies should be carried out to compare guided imaginary projection with dynamic immersive virtual reality projections.

We also feel it is important to go back to the measurement of the projection. In response to Slater's reservations about presence (2004), we have chosen to combine measurement with discourse indicators and measurement with a questionnaire to try to get closer to the level of projection of the participants during the quasi-experience. These two indicators seem to show consistent results: no difference in the presence/absorption feeling questionnaire, no difference in the type of discourse produced between the two methods tested. Further studies should be conducted to psychometrically validate the proposed scale for measuring projection in imagined experiences. We
also regret that not enough studies use qualitative methods to study how likely future users react to
future environments, services or technologies, given the shortcomings of questionnaires in capturing
rich and in-depth information on situations that are new or unknown to the participants (Nordhoff et
al., 2018; Lemonnier et al., 2023).

The final point on which we would like to focus this discussion is the question of individual capacities
to project themselves emotionally and sensorially into a future situation. We took great care to
characterise our two sub-samples so as not to introduce any bias into the comparison of the two
methods. As Colin et al. (2022) already highlighted, we stress the importance of considering the
ability to produce future-oriented thought including emotions and perceptions in order to guarantee
the richness of the content produced. To this end, in the future projection habits questionnaire, we
introduced items linked to the vividness of imagery to characterise our sample (i.e. about the
presence of various sensory perceptions during habitual future-oriented thoughts). Further
theoretical and methodological research needs to be carried out on this ability and its measurement
in the context of future-oriented thinking. There is also a lack of research linking mental imagery
capacity and the feeling of presence/absorption. In our case, we did observe a positive link between
the score on the projection habit questionnaire and the presence/absorption feeling score, as found
by Iachini et al. (2019). We are not equal in our ability to imagine the future, just as we are not equal
in feeling emotions and sensory perceptions when we have imaginary experiences. What are the
reasons for these differences, and how can we measure it? They are essential issues to understand
when it comes to prospective ergonomics.

## Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Bethany Cagnol for English language editing of this article.

Funding information: This research was not funded.

Declaration of interest: *The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.*

Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, SA, upon reasonable request.

Consent: Any participant has given informed consent to participate in the research.

Ethics: This research has been performed in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. For this kind of non-interventional study, ethics approval is not required according to French law.

## References

Allinc, A. (2018). *Sources de confort et d'inconfort psychologiques dans les transports et conditions pour l'usage de modes plus respectueux de l'environnement*. [Doctoral dissertation, Télécom Paris]

Allinc, A., Cahour, B., & Burkhardt, J. M. (2019). The guided imaginary projection, a new methodology for prospective ergonomics. In *Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VII: Ergonomics in Design, Design for All, Activity Theories for Work Analysis and Design, Affective Design 20* (pp. 1340-1347). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_135
Atwa, S. M. H., Ibrahim, M. G., Saleh, A. M., & Murata, R. (2019). Development of sustainable landscape design guidelines for a green business park using virtual reality. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, 48, 101543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101543

Bagousse, C., Arciszewski, T., Lo Monaco, G., & Bonnardel, N. (2023). Anticiper les transformations possibles de l'activité par le Design-Fiction : la simulation (science) fictionnelle de l'activité future. *Proceedings of Epique 2023*. Arpege Science Publishing.

Baños, R., Botella, C., Garcia-Palacios, A., Villa, H., Perpiñá, C., & Gallardo, M. (1999). Psychological variables and reality judgment in virtual environments: the roles of absorption and dissociation. *CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2*(2), 143-148. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.1999.2.143

Belaroussi, R., Pazzini, M., Issa, I., Dionisio, C., Lantieri, C., González, E. D., Vignali, V., & Adélé, S. (2023). Assessing the Future Streetscape of Rimini Harbor Docks with Virtual Reality. *Sustainability*, 15(6), 5547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065547

Betts, G.H. (1909). *The distribution and functions of mental imagery*. Teachers College.

Bonneviot, F. (2022). *Ergonomie de l'interaction entre le piéton et le véhicule automatisé : approche prospective centrée sur la confiance*. [Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lorraine].

Brangier, E., Brangier, B., Marache-Francisco, C., Kopp, S., Clausse, J. (2019). An Interview Process to Anticipate Future Needs. In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, Y. Fujita (eds), *Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing*, vol 824. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_76

Brangier, É., & Robert, J. M. (2014). L'ergonomie prospective: fondements et enjeux. *Le travail humain/Human Work*, 77(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.771.0001

Burdea, G.C., & Coiffet, P. (2003). *Virtual reality technology*. Wiley.

Cahour, B., & Forzy, J. F. (2009). Does projection into use improve trust and exploration? An example with a cruise control system. *Safety science*, 47(9), 1260-1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.03.015

Cahour, B., Hoarau, M., & Rossi, A. (2021b). Sharing an Autonomous Taxi Without a Driver Through Guided Imaginary Projection to Identify Sources of (Dis) comfort. In: N. L. Black, W.P. Neumann, I., Noy (eds), *Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021). Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems*, vol 219. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74602-5_87

Cahour, B., Salembier, P., & Zouinar, M. (2016). Analyzing lived experience of activity. *Le travail humain/Human Work*, 79(3), 259-284. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.793.0259

Colin, C., Martin, A., Bonneviot, F., & Brangier, E. (2022). Unravelling future thinking: a valuable concept for prospective ergonomics. *Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science*, 23(3), 347-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2021.1943045

Desoille, R. (1965). *The directed daydream*. Psychosynthesis Research Foundation.

Elias, E., Bobillier Chaumon, M.E., & Vacher, M. (2019). Design methods for the projection of uses for vulnerable people. In: S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, Y. Fujita (eds), *Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing*, vol 824. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_76
*Systems and Computing*, vol 824. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_80

Flach, J. M., & Holden, J. G. (1998). The reality of experience: Gibson's way. *Presence*, 7(1), 90-95. doi: 10.1162/105474698565550

Frederiks, A. J., Englis, B. G., Ehrenhard, M. L., & Groen, A. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial cognition and the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive processes. *Journal of business venturing*, 34(2), 327-347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.05.007

Gerrig, R. (2018). Experiencing narrative worlds. Routledge.

Gilbert, D.T., & Wilson, T.D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the Future. *Science*, 317, 1351-1354.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1144161

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. *Journal of personality and social psychology*, 79(5), 701. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701

Hein, D., Mai, C., & Hußmann, H. (2018). The usage of presence measurements in research: a review.
In *Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research Annual Conference (Presence)* (pp. 21-22). The International Society for Presence Research.

Hoarau, M, & Cahour, B. (2021). Partage d'un robot-taxi autonome lors d'un trajet par projection imaginaire guidée : quelles sources de confort et d'inconfort dues à l'absence de chauffeur ? In *Proceedings of Epique 2021* (pp. 122-129). ARPEGE Science Publishing.

Iachini, T., Maffei, L., Masullo, M., Senese, V. P., Rapuano, M., Pascale, A., Sorrentino, F., & Ruggiero, G. (2019). The experience of virtual reality: are individual differences in mental imagery associated with sense of presence? *Cognitive processing*, 20(3), 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0897-y

Jiang, L., Masullo, M., Maffei, L., Meng, F., & Vorländer, M. (2018). How do shared-street design and traffic restriction improve urban soundscape and human experience?—An online survey with virtual reality. *Building and Environment*, 143, 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.005

Lemonnier, A., Adélé, S., & Dionisio, C. (2023). Acceptability of autonomous trains with different grades of automation by potential users: A qualitative approach. Travel behaviour and society, 33, 100641.

Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001). A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC sense of presence inventory. *Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments*, 10(3), 282–297.
https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343612

Liao, B., van den Berg, P. E., van Wesemael, P. J., & Arentze, T. A. (2022). Individuals' perception of walkability: Results of a conjoint experiment using videos of virtual environments. *Cities*, 125, 103650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103650

Lindgren, T., Pink, S., & Fors, V. (2021). Fore-sighting autonomous driving-An Ethnographic approach.
*Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 173, 121105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121105
Loup-Escande, E., Burkhardt, J. M., Christmann, O., & Richir, S. (2014). Needs' elaboration between users, designers and project leaders: Analysis of a design process of a virtual reality based software. *Information and Software Technology*, 56(8), 1049-1061.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.04.008

Marks, D.F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. *British Journal of Psychology*, 64(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb013 22.x

Martin, A., Agnoletti, M. F., & Brangier, É. (2021). Ordinary users, precursory users and experts in the anticipation of future needs: evaluation of their contribution in the elaboration of new needs in energy for housing. *Applied Ergonomics*, 94, 103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103394

Milovanovic, J., Moreau, G., Siret, D., & Miguet, F. (2017). Virtual and augmented reality in architectural design and education. In *17th international conference CAAD futures 2017*.

Nakamura, K. (2021). Experimental analysis of walkability evaluation using virtual reality application. *Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science*, 48(8), 2481-2496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320980747

Nelson, J., Buisine, S., & Joussat, A. (2013). Anticipating the use of future things: Towards a framework for prospective use analysis in innovation design projects. Applied ergonomics, 44(6), 948-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.01.002

Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Madigan, R., Merat, N., van Arem, B., & Happee, R. (2018). User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin- S chöneberg: A questionnaire study. *Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour*, 58, 843-854.

Portman, M. E., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. *Computers, Environment and Urban Systems*, 54, 376-384.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001

Robert, J. M., & Brangier, E. (2019). Overview of Methods for Prospective Ergonomics. In *Proceedings of the 50th Nordic Ergonomics and Human Factors Society Conference* (pp. 77-85). Elsinore, Denmark.

Saleh, A., & Nassar, U. (2011). The use of new visualization Tools to Enhance Public Participation in Riverfronts' Landscape regeneration. In *4th Urbenviron International Congress on Environmental Planning and Management. Green Cities: a Path to Sustainability*.

Sanchez, G. M. E., Van Renterghem, T., Sun, K., De Coensel, B., & Botteldooren, D. (2017). Using Virtual Reality for assessing the role of noise in the audio-visual design of an urban public space. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 167, 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.018

Sas, C., & O'Hare, G. M. (2003). Presence equation: An investigation into cognitive factors underlying presence. Presence, 12(5), 523-537. DOI: 10.1162/105474603322761315

Schubert, T.W. (2003). The sense of presence in virtual environments: a three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness. *Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie*, 15(2), 69-71. https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-6383.15.2.69

Skarbez, R., Brooks, Jr, F. P., & Whitton, M. C. (2017). A survey of presence and related concepts. *ACM computing surveys (CSUR)*, 50(6), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134301
Slater, M. (2004). How colorful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. *Presence: teleoperators and virtual environments*, 13(4), 484-493. DOI: 10.1162/1054746041944849

Slater, M. (2009). Place Illusion and Plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London*, 364, 3549-3557. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074

Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. *British journal of psychology*, 109(3), 431-433. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12305

Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. *Journal of abnormal psychology*, 83(3), 268. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036681

Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., & Slater, M. (2000). Using presence questionnaires in reality. *Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments*, 9(5), 497-503. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474600566989

Van Belleghem, L. (2017). What are the design requirements for an organisational simulation support? In *Proceedings of the 48th annual conference of the association of Canadian ergonomists & 12th international symposium on human factors in organisational design and management* (pp. 400-406).

Vermersch, P. (1994). *The explicitation interview*. Esf.

# Appendix

## Appendix 1. Future Projection Habits Questionnaire

Responses on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always)

1. Do you ever daydream about the future?

2. When you think to something: A. Do you see images? B. Do you perceive sounds/fragrances/tastes?

3. Do those around you emphasise your ability to imagine future situations?

4. Do you ever imagine yourself in the distant future (10 years or more)?

5. In your job, do you have to project yourself into the future?

## Appendix 2. Questionnaire of presence/absorption feeling

Responses from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot)

<table><tr><td>Subscale 1. Implication<br/>Were you keen to take part in this study?<br/>During your experience, how involved were you?<br/>Did you find it easy to project yourself into the environment?</td><td>Subscale 2. Spatial presence<br/>Do you feel like you have entered the virtual/imaginary environment?<br/>During the projection, were you aware of what was happening in the room?<br/>Did you have the sensation of moving around in the virtual/imaginary environment?<br/>Did you have the impression that you were</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Appendix 3. Distribution of the different types of speech according to the projection method used (G=general, A=analytical, E=embodied)</caption><tr><td>Subscale 3. Emotional and sensorial dimensions<br/>During the projection, did you think about a past experience?<br/>Did the environment provoke emotions in you (well-being, surprise, frustration)?<br/>To what extent were your senses stimulated during the experience?</td><td>interacting with people in the environment?<br/>Subscale 4. Realism of the environment<br/>Do you feel that your experience in the virtual/imaginary environment is consistent with your experiences in the real world?<br/>Did the visual aids presenting the environment help you to get involved?</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>VEMP group</th><th>G</th><th>%</th><th>A</th><th>%</th><th>E</th><th>%</th><th>Total</th><th>GIP group</th><th>G</th><th>%</th><th>A</th><th>%</th><th>E</th><th>%</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>VEMP 1</td><td>118</td><td>19%</td><td>306</td><td>49%</td><td>197</td><td>32%</td><td>621</td><td>GIP 1</td><td>112</td><td>21%</td><td>272</td><td>51%</td><td>146</td><td>28%</td><td>530</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 2</td><td>135</td><td>25%</td><td>283</td><td>53%</td><td>119</td><td>22%</td><td>537</td><td>GIP 2</td><td>19</td><td>5%</td><td>214</td><td>56%</td><td>152</td><td>39%</td><td>385</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 3</td><td>122</td><td>27%</td><td>80</td><td>18%</td><td>246</td><td>55%</td><td>448</td><td>GIP 3</td><td>56</td><td>15%</td><td>198</td><td>54%</td><td>110</td><td>30%</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 4</td><td>83</td><td>16%</td><td>108</td><td>21%</td><td>317</td><td>63%</td><td>508</td><td>GIP 4</td><td>25</td><td>9%</td><td>120</td><td>44%</td><td>127</td><td>47%</td><td>272</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 5</td><td>151</td><td>42%</td><td>118</td><td>33%</td><td>91</td><td>25%</td><td>360</td><td>GIP 5</td><td>96</td><td>18%</td><td>329</td><td>61%</td><td>118</td><td>22%</td><td>543</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 6</td><td>70</td><td>14%</td><td>317</td><td>63%</td><td>116</td><td>23%</td><td>503</td><td>GIP 6</td><td>76</td><td>16%</td><td>225</td><td>46%</td><td>189</td><td>39%</td><td>490</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 7</td><td>104</td><td>24%</td><td>164</td><td>37%</td><td>166</td><td>39%</td><td>434</td><td>GIP 7</td><td>57</td><td>11%</td><td>314</td><td>60%</td><td>151</td><td>29%</td><td>522</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 8</td><td>164</td><td>39%</td><td>137</td><td>32%</td><td>119</td><td>29%</td><td>420</td><td>GIP 8</td><td>42</td><td>8%</td><td>314</td><td>57%</td><td>194</td><td>35%</td><td>550</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 9</td><td>134</td><td>42%</td><td>65</td><td>20%</td><td>123</td><td>38%</td><td>322</td><td>GIP 9</td><td>103</td><td>19%</td><td>199</td><td>36%</td><td>250</td><td>45%</td><td>552</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 10</td><td>6</td><td>2%</td><td>192</td><td>60%</td><td>122</td><td>38%</td><td>320</td><td>GIP 10</td><td>65</td><td>12%</td><td>323</td><td>62%</td><td>134</td><td>26%</td><td>522</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 11</td><td>100</td><td>24%</td><td>269</td><td>65%</td><td>47</td><td>11%</td><td>416</td><td>GIP 11</td><td>9</td><td>3%</td><td>265</td><td>94%</td><td>8</td><td>3%</td><td>282</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 12</td><td>88</td><td>29%</td><td>167</td><td>53%</td><td>52</td><td>18%</td><td>307</td><td>GIP 12</td><td>92</td><td>20%</td><td>235</td><td>50%</td><td>139</td><td>30%</td><td>466</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 13</td><td>62</td><td>20%</td><td>143</td><td>47%</td><td>102</td><td>33%</td><td>307</td><td>GIP 13</td><td>54</td><td>14%</td><td>169</td><td>43%</td><td>169</td><td>43%</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 14</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>204</td><td>66%</td><td>105</td><td>34%</td><td>309</td><td>GIP 14</td><td>110</td><td>21%</td><td>221</td><td>42%</td><td>198</td><td>37%</td><td>529</td></tr><tr><td>VEMP 15</td><td>84</td><td>17%</td><td>206</td><td>41%</td><td>214</td><td>42%</td><td>504</td><td>GIP 15</td><td>171</td><td>41%</td><td>119</td><td>29%</td><td>127</td><td>30%</td><td>417</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>24%</td><td>47%</td><td>33%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Median</td><td>15%</td><td>51%</td><td>30%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>