# CityBuildAR: Enhancing Community Engagement in Placemaking Through Mobile Augmented Reality
## 4 Analysis and Results
### Overview  
Figure 10 indicates the participant breakdown including the three participant groups--university students, professionals, and the general public--considered in the study. 23 undergraduates between the 18-34 age group participated in the session A. As shown in Figure 10 below, the participants were from different educational backgrounds, including urban planning (26%), architecture (6%), business studies (8%), engineering (4%), and quantity surveying (2%). The majority of the participants were somewhat familiar (54.5%), and the rest of the participants were very familiar (21.3%) with the placemaking concept as most of them heard about it through different methods such as academic modules or studies (80%), from professionals or authorities (32%), and also from social media (40%), which indicates that some of them were exposed to the concept via multiple methods. In comparison, 24.2% of the participants were unfamiliar with the concept.  
The non-academic staff members, including technical assistants, drivers, and the cleaning staff, attended session A to represent the general public's perspective on using AR for placemaking. As indicated in Figure 10, a total of 14 individuals, including seven non-academic members (14%), four cleaning service members (8%), and three others (6%) aged 35-54 participated in the demonstration. Among them, only three participants heard about placemaking, and only one participant engaged in placemaking activity by coordinating a placemaking workshop.  
Academic staff from urban planning, architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering fields were taken as professionals to evaluate the CityBuildAR application for designing the university cafeteria at the University of Moratuwa in session B. A total of 13 academic staff members participated in the demonstration, with the majority representing the fields of urban planning (eight participants--16%), landscape architecture (three  
Figure 10: Participants’ Profile.  
participants--6%), and architecture (two participants--4%), respectively. According to their feedback, a majority of them familiar with placemaking (84.6%) through academic modules (68.1%), from professionals and authorities in the field (81.3%), through stakeholder meetings and workshops (56.3%), and some of them through media (18.8%).  
The professionals' role in the previous placemaking activities was described as actively contributing to the design and planning of green and recreational spaces by integrating community input, providing technical guidance for infrastructure improvements, and collaborating with stakeholders through workshops and urban planning projects, refined through academic modules and practical experiences. Commonly used placemaking methodologies were participatory mapping, stakeholder meetings, and discussions, while the tools used to design through hand sketching, AutoCAD 2024, SketchUp 2024 modeling, physical models, and GIS (10.8.2) tools.  
The participants' familiarity with the selected location (university cafeteria) for the study was evaluated. The majority of the university students (78.8%--18), general public (92.86%--13), and professionals--(84.6%--11) who participated were familiar with the location, while the rest of the participants also responded as somewhat familiar with it. The university students and professionals responded to the use of cafeteria space for dining, gathering, using ATM, and other recreational activities, while the general public responded to dining and cleaning the space. Additionally, the willingness to engage in placemaking through AR has been considered, and the majority (55.9%) of university students were very interested in it, while the professionals (52.6%) and general public (51.5%) responded as somewhat interested in it.