2.1. SECONDARY RESEARCH

The method involves systematic review of academic literature, official Swiss and international reports, policy documents, and documented case studies. The cross-disciplinary synthesis enables the identification of recurring challenges in environmental risk communication while revealing how emerging technologies might address these limitations. The secondary research provides the theoretical foundation necessary for developing spatially intuitive communication as a design approach.

2.2. RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGN

Early prototyping helped identify the research opportunity and informed the theoretical direction. The hands-on experiences revealed the potential of immersive technologies to recontextualize environmental data.

2.3. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

Selected case studies provide illustrative examples of current visualization approaches in environmental risk communication. Some examples offer Swiss specific context, while other projects demonstrate different approaches to ma king technical information accessible to public audiences. These cases serve as reference points.

2.4. ANALYTICAL PROCESS

The development of spatially intuitive communication emerged from recognizing how three-dimensional environmental processes lose spatial context when flattened into conventional two-dimensional formats. This led to research into how this challenge manifests across risk communication, data visualization, and immersive technology domains. The design approach was subsequently developed to address this challenge of preserving spatial context in environmental communication.

The design guidelines developed in this thesis synthesize the insights into practi cal recommendations, providing actionable guidance for practitioners.

3.1. SWITZERLAND’S CHANGING RISK LANDSCAPES

“Our approach to natural hazards has reached a high level and is also recognized internationally. However, we are now facing new challenges: climate change is increasing the risk posed by natural events. Due to higher temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, a significant increase in debris flows, lands lides, rockfalls, and floods is to be expected. The dangers are not only increasing in mountainous areas; the whole of Switzerland must prepare for new scenarios, such as more frequent and intense rainfall, which could also flood your base ment.” (Steffen, 2020)

This statement by Paul Steffen (Vice Director FOEN, 2020) captures a growing reality: Switzerland is entering a new era of environmental uncertainty. Natural hazards which were previously perceived as seasonal and geographically confined, are evolving in frequency, complexity, and impact.

In Switzerland, natural hazards are typically categoriesed into three categories (HEV, 2025; VKF, 2025):

• Meteorological natural hazards are hazards that arise from short-term we ather phenomena such as snow, storms, hail, heatwaves, and heavy rainfall.
• Gravitational natural hazards are hazards that arise from the flow, sliding, or falling of water (debris flows), earth masses (landslides), rocks (rock fall), or snow (avalanches).
• Geological hazards like earthquakes, radon exposure, and tectonic activity.

Climate change introduces additional dimensions to the natural hazard land scape: creeping phenomena like drought, new risks such as wildfires, and com plex cascades where multiple hazards interact. The cascade effect makes them harder to forecast and more difficult to manage. (FOEN, 2025, Natural hazards: In brief; umwelt magazine, 2020).

7 + 1. 2. INFOGRAPHIC One-stop shop for natural hazards. Natural hazards are one of the focuses of WSL and SLF. Researchers deal with both the underlying processes and the measures to protect people and infrastructure. A few examples. If different natural hazard processes occur together, researchers distinguish between: Cascade This term refers to chain reactions. For example, a rockslide into a mountain lake can trigger a tsunami that causes considerable damage to the lake shore. Compound Here, at least two events overlap. This can be a heatwave combined with a drought, for example, with negative consequences for agriculture, industry and human health. Climate change as a driver In the coming decades, rising global temperatu res will lead to more extreme weather conditions – and therefore an increase in natural events. Infographic: Michael Stünzi and Daniel Röttele, infografik.ch; data and text: Nadine Salzmann, Manfred Stähli, Jochen Bettzieche Flood By studying past severe weather events, researchers are learning how floods occur and what types of damage they cause. Drought WSL and SLF develop drought forecasts so that Switzerland can prepare for water shortages well in advance. Forest fire FireNiche is a statistical method developed by WSL to help forestry and meteorological services and fire brigades determine the daily risk of forest fires. Rockfall processes SLF collects information on rockslides in permafrost regions, with help from hikers. Debris flow SLF and WSL study these mixtures of water, mud and rocks both on site and in the lab, for e.g. on a model landscape produced using a 3D printer. Landslide At some locations, WSL collects data on soil moisture to determine threshold values for the occurrence of landslides. Avalanche In the avalanche bulletin, SLF provides infor mation on the hazard situation once or twice a day in winter and as required in summer. Storm Long-term WSL studies demonstrate that storm damage in forests promotes insect diversity and endangered species. WSL MAGAZINE DIAGONAL NO. 1 2025 7

3.2. SPATIAL AND LOCAL SPECIFICITY

Natural hazards are deeply tied to geography. The country's topography shapes where and how risks manifest. Hazards such as rockfall or avalanches are highly localized, sometimes threatening individual roads or villages, while tecto nic hazards like earthquakes, although very rare in Switzerland, could potentially affect wider regions.

Experts often emphasize that natural hazards are hyper-local in Switzerland, meaning that hazards are not only distributed uneven across the country, but that even within a small valley, risks can differ dramatically depending on land use. (BAFU, 2020)

This spatial specificity creates distinct challenges for risk communication. For example, traditional hazard maps, while technically accurate, are difficult for non-experts to interpret in relation to their specific situations (Grainger et al., 2016; Hullman, 2020). A single map might show a red hazard zone that encom passes both a safely elevated road and a vulnerable building in a low-lying area, but translating these abstract zone designations into understanding of personal risk requires specialized data literacy skills. The same hazard can translate to very different risk levels depending on exact location, building materials, and local topographic features.

This hyper-local variability demands not only regionally differentiated management strategies but also location-sensitive communication approaches. Effective communication must be able to address questions like: “What does this flood scenario mean for my specific street?” or “How would rockfall patterns affect my daily route to work?”

These communication challenges point toward the need for new approaches that can keep spatial context during risk communication. Instead of asking residents to mentally translate zone maps onto their surroundings, location-based overlays could present hazard scenarios in places where decisions about preparedness must be made.

This potential aligns particularly well with Switzerland's municipal-level governance of natural hazards, where local knowledge and site-specific decisions play crucial roles in effective risk management. Communication tools that work at the scale of neighborhoods and individual properties could support the locally grounded preparedness that Switzerland's hazard management approach requires.

3.3. PARADIGM SHIFT: FROM PREVENTION

TO INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT Traditionally, Switzerland’s approach to natural hazards emphasized ha zard prevention through structural measures. However, a paradigm shift has taken place in recent years, moving toward integrated risk management approaches. As the Homeowners Association Switzerland (HEV, 2025) outlines, this includes “structural, biological, planning, and organizational approaches,” but also emphasizes prevention before events, insurance, and citizen responsibility after events.

REISE ZUM AKZEPTIERTEN RISIKO (JOURNEY TO ACCEPTED RISK) The “Journey to Accepted Risk” (RaR) represents Switzerland's shift to ward participatory risk management. Developed as part of the national climate adaptation program, RaR brings together authorities, planners, and local stakeholders through an eight-step process to collectively assess natural hazard risks and negotiate which risks are acceptable and which require targeted mitigation.

The process emphasizes development of shared vocabulary among diverse par ticipants. As the project documentation (SLF, 2023) states, solutions can only be found when “the various affected and involved parties develop a common picture of the risks from the outset.”

Key questions include: What are the essential risks? Which risks do we accept? What is important to us? Where do we intervene to reduce unaccepted risks?

RaR's participatory approach addresses a fundamental communication challenge: meaningful participation in risk decisions requires common ground for under standing technical information and local concerns. The process creates structu red opportunities for dialogue rather than top-down expert assessments, suppor ting Switzerland's shared responsibility model for natural hazards.

3.4. IMPACTS ON PEOPLE AND SOCIETY

Natural hazards occur where natural and human systems intersect (Fig. 5,6). For example, an avalanche in a remote and uninhabited mountain valley is no danger to humans. However, in a popular tourist resort, the potential damage, and therefore the natural hazard, can be extremely high. This shows that hazards only become problems only when they affect with human life. (Dikau & Voss, 2025)

Swiss examples show clear impacts: in Guttannen, repeated rockfalls blocked the Grimselpass road and disrupted mobility. In Bondo, the 2017 debris flow cau sed cancelled bookings and lasting losses in tourism. Impacts on buildings range from flooded basements to severely damaged structures.

The psychological consequences including stress, fear, and trauma often linger long after physical reconstruction. For affected people, the hazard is not only a geophysical phenomenon but a disruption to safety and identity.

The same hazard will impact people differently based on their individual situati on. An elderly person might struggle to evacuate quickly. Someone who doesn't speak the local language might miss warning messages. A family with young children needs more time to prepare and different types of information. The de gree to which people are impacted is therefore influenced by their individual vulnerability and resilience. Vulnerability to natural hazards in Switzerland is not predetermined by generational or socioeconomic categories. (Saunders et al., 2025; Steinemann et al., 2025)

3.5. STAKEHOLDERS AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Civic engagement plays a pivotal role in Switzerland's approach to natural hazards management, as the Federal Office for the Environment sees them as shared responsibility: “Every person and institution bears risks from natural ha zards – both for themselves and for society. In addition, people influence the level of risk through their actions. As such, we are all stakeholders when it comes to dealing with natural hazards – albeit in different roles.” (umwelt magazine, 2020)

When analyzing the key stakeholders involved in natural hazard management, three main groups emerge (Fig. 7) (FOEN, 2025, Facing natural hazards): 1. Public Authorities: Develop strategies, provide information (e.g., hazard maps, legal frameworks), implement protection measures, and warn the population. 2. Insurance Companies: Assess risks, advise homeowners and businesses, and offer financial protection against damages caused by natural hazards (e.g., hail, storms, earthquakes). 3. Potentially Affected Persons: Take precautions, protect their own pro perty, and prepare for emergencies.

In risk management a shared understanding among all stakeholders is essential (SLF, 2023). However, each group views hazards differently. Authorities rely on technical assessments and regulations, insurers on actuarial models, and residents just want what is best for them. What represents acceptable risk from a regula tory perspective may feel unacceptable from a personal safety perspective, and technical classifications that work for insurance assessments may not translate effectively to individual preparedness decisions.

These interpretation challenges point toward the need for communication approaches that can create common ground across diverse perspectives. When risk information can be anchored to shared spatial references, the same buildings, roads, and landscapes that all stakeholders recognize, it may serve as a foundation for dialogue that bridges different knowledge systems and concerns, supporting the shared understanding that effective risk governance requires.

As discussed in chapter 3.3. a shared understanding between these groups is es sential. Yet complex data alone rarely creates such alignment. As Hullman (2020) and Paul (2016) argue, more data does not necessarily lead to more insight, par ticularly when it is probabilistic or difficult to interpret. Instead, risk commu nication tools must translate hazards into actionable information. This supports the need for clear, accessible communication and visualizations that empowers people, not only experts.

Main Stakeholders Other Actors P u b l ic Authorities Insurance Compa n i e s Potentially Affected Persons Society Nature Federal Municipality Canton Landscape Resources Scientists & Experts Data Scientists & Analysts Urban Planners Association Journalists Science Communicators Environmental Organizations NGOs Information Designers UX/UI Designers Industry Trade Unions General Public Mass Media

3.6. GEODATA

The way experts in Switzerland monitor and collect data on natural ha zards has evolved significantly over the past decades, providing a wealth of information. Sophisticated systems now collect data on rainfall, slope movement, water levels, snow conditions and much more. Authorities maintain databases that feed real-time warning systems and inform long-term planning. Because of Switzerland’s Open Data policy much information is made publicly accessible through online platforms and digital maps. (FOEN, 2025, GIN; opendata.swiss, 2025)

Natural hazards are dynamic process that unfold in space and time. Their effects, whether damaging or avoidable, depend on where they occur and who or what lies in their path. This makes geospatial data indispensable for understanding and managing these risks.

Geodata (Geographic Data) refers to information that can be assigned to a spatial location. Such a georeference could be coordinates or indirect assignment to an administrative area (country, city, street). (“Geodaten”, 2023)

Environmental data is data, that is related to and describes the natural. Geo reference is not mandatory, and it is usually subject to a temporal dimension. (“umweltdaten,” 2025)

It provides a quantifiable basis for understanding environmental conditions, trends, and the effectiveness of interventions. Therefore, playing a critical role in informing decision-making across various sectors. (“Environmental Data”, 2025)

Geodata is not inherently environmental data, though there is significant overlap between the two. Environmental science heavily relies on spatial analysis, making geodata tools essential for environmental research. Additionally, many environmental phenomena are inherently spatial: pollution spreads geographically, ecosystems exist in specific locations, climate varies by region and natural hazards are very local.

However, geodata is simply a way of organizing and analyzing information based on location. The subject matter of that information can be environmental, soci al, economic, political, or any other domain where location matters. So, while environmental data is often geodata, geodata encompasses much more than just environmental information.

But while this data is critical from a scientific and operational perspective, it does not automatically translate into public understanding or personal action. The shift from technical geodata to communicative risk insight remains a challenge.

Data visualization offers a powerful tool to address this issue. As “Visualization can help portray complex issues, which in turn can support civic engagement.” (Dörk et al., 2018)

4.1. DEFINITION & SCOPE

Risk communication can be broadly defined as a social process of infor mation exchange about risk (individual, social, political, environmental) that is purposeful or non-purposeful. (Höppner et al., 2010)

Early approaches were grounded in the Shannon and Weaver (1948) sender-recei ver model (Fig. 8), where communication is the intentional transfer of information from experts to the public. With emphasis on the purpose and quality of the infor mation provided (Plough & Krimsky, 1987).

Over time, however, this linear model has shifted toward more dialogical exchan ge, where knowledge, values, and opinions circulate between stakeholders (Fig. 7).

Communication is therefore no longer only about broadcasting hazard informati on but about fostering trust and preparedness. (Höppner et al., 2010)

Building on this, the thesis takes inspiration from the participatory spirit of newer models while keeping the scope realistic. Rather than full participation, the focus lies on how visualizations and immersive environments can encourage explorati on, allowing users to reach their own conclusions, and foster agency.

CapHaz-Net WP5 REPORT (Risk Communication) 11/2010 7 1 Risk communication on natural hazards Human communication has been studied in a diversity of disciplines, ranging from the early arts of rhetoric over psychology, sociology, anthropology, geography, organisation, management, and computer science to contemporary journalism and marketing. Shannon’s (1948, cited in Lindell and Perry 2004, p 21) traditional communication model has been the inspiration and basis for the bulk of the risk communication literature (Renn 2008). Basically, the model states that there is a source that sends a message through some channel to a receiver (see Figure 1). Whether this communication process should be one-way or allow an interactive exchange of information between those communicating has been the subject of long-standing contentions. Already Plato, favouring face-to-face dialogue, was suspicious of the public speakers of his day trying to persuade their audience of their positions. While recognising the goals of dialogue, his student Aristotle insisted that one-way communication could be ethical depending on the speaker’s intention and character (Moser 2010). Figure 1: Sender and receiver model (adapted from Shannon 1948) Applied to risk, communication might be defined broadly as a social process of information ex change between any entities in society on any form of risk (individual, social, political, envi ronmental) that is purposeful or non-purposeful. In early risk management literature a narrower definition had become more widespread according to which risk communication ‘usually focuses on an intentional transfer of information designed to respond to public concerns or public needs related to real or perceived hazards. Thus, risk communication incorporates tacit or explicit goals for targeted groups about specific events or processes’ and it centres on the intentionality of the source of information and the quality of the information (Plough and Krimsky 1987, p 6). More recently, there has been a tendency to understand risk communication as an interactive exchange rather than a one-way transfer of information, knowledge and opinions among/between those responsible for managing risks and those who may be affected by hazard events (e.g. WHO definition http://www.who.int/foodsafety/micro/riskcommunication/en/index. html; De Marchi et al. 2006).

4.2. PURPOSE & FUNCTION

The purposes of risk communication vary by phase: before (communication is mainly preventive), during (centers on warnings and instructions), and after hazard events (shifts to recovery, reflection, and rebuilding trust).

This thesis is limited to the before phase, as it aims to increase preparedness.

This also distinguishes risk communication in this thesis from crisis, or emer gency communication, which is reactive and focused on immediate warnings and post-event coordination (Höppner et al., 2010).

Three core principles are especially relevant:

• Inform, Educate and Motivate Protective Action
• Build Trust and Credibility
• Enable Shared Responsibility

For this thesis, the focus lies on visual and immersive approaches that bridge awa reness-raising with exploratory interaction. While not fully participatory, such approaches can open space for audiences to move from passive reception toward active decision-making.

CHALLENGES IN RISK COMMUNICATION Turning these purposes into practice is not straightforward. Research highlights recurring challenges that shape how communication is received and acted upon (Höppner et al., 2010; Paul, 2016)

Hazards rarely occur in isolation, with floods triggering landslides and storms leading to debris flows. Simplifying these complex dynamics without losing nuance is difficult (Höppner et al., 2010). Then there is the perception gap, where the public often underestimates long-term or invisible risks compared to expert assessments, limiting preparedness and engagement (Paul, 2016).

Communication challenges extend beyond technical complexity to social dynamics. Stakeholders frequently disagree on acceptable risk levels and fairness of measures, creating conflict. Successful protective infrastructure can paradoxically create false security through the “levee effect”, encouraging settlement in hazard-prone areas (Höppner et al., 2010).

Underlying all these challenges are fundamental trust and uncertainty issues. Probabilistic forecasts remain difficult to communicate, with transparency either strengthening or weakening trust depending on context (Lundgren & McMakin (2009); Frewer, 2004). Trust proves central to all risk communication. Once lost, it becomes difficult to rebuild, requiring approaches that maintain “critical trust” where people remain engaged and reflective. (Höppner 2010)

These challenges act as design constraints for communication tools. For example, perception gaps call for visualizations that connect abstract data to familiar en vironments; uncertainty requires clear visual encoding that preserves complexity, and trust demands visible data sources and transparent methodologies.

4.3. PRINCIPLES OF GOOD RISK COMMUNICATION

Building on the purposes and challenges of risk communication, the CapHaz-Net report (Höppner et al., 2010) and related literature emphasize se veral guiding principles that help ensure communication is both effective and trustworthy.

Transparency and Openness Effective communication requires honesty about what is known and unk nown. This includes acknowledging uncertainties, explaining why they exist, and clarifying what can or cannot be done to reduce them (Lundgren & McMakin, 2009).

Clarity and Accessibility Complex information must be presented in ways that are understandable to non-experts. This does not mean oversimplifying hazards but finding formats that allow people to grasp the relevance (Grainger et al., 2016). Accessibility in cludes attention to different audiences.

Dialogue and Participation Communication is most effective with interaction. This is especially im portant in contexts where risk management requires shared responsibility. Tools that allow exploration or participatory engagement, even at a basic level, help move communication beyond passive reception. (Höppner et al., 2010)

Trust and Relationship-Building Trust is central to all risk communication. Once broken, trust is difficult to rebuild, which is why openness and continuity in communication are crucial. (Walls et al., 2004)

Context-Sensitivity Messages must be tailored to local risk profiles, cultural expectations, and institutional settings. In Switzerland, where responsibility is shared across mul tiple levels of governance, context-sensitive communication ensures that advice feels relevant, actionable, and fair.

These principles underline that good communication is not only about technical accuracy but also about designing for accessibility and trust.

4.4. THE ROLE OF MEMORY IN RISK COMMUNICATION

When disasters fade from memory, the sense of urgency often fades with them, which can lead to complacency or underestimation of risk.

This phenomenon is described as disaster amnesia. It is the tendency of societies and individuals to “forget” past events over time, especially when new genera tions have not directly experienced them. (Birkholz et al., 2014)

Closely related is the normalcy bias, a cognitive bias that leads people to un derestimate both the likelihood and potential impacts of rare but catastrophic events. (Lauren, 2023)

A similar effect can also be seen in the preparedness paradox, which states that the more effective risk management and protective measures are, the less people perceive the underlying hazard as a threat. Ironically stating that success can reduce public motivation to stay engaged in preparedness activities or support long-term mitigation strategies. (Demuth et al., 2016)

These psychological factors illustrate why integral risk communication must sus tain long-term awareness and keep collective memory alive. Because communi ties that remember past events often take future risks more seriously and prepare more effectively. In Switzerland, this role has increasingly been recognized in exhibitions, cultural spaces, and public education initiatives.

The challenge is to move beyond commemoration to support both memory and preparedness. This raises questions about how visualization and immersi ve techniques can leverage the emotional power of memory while also enabling forward-looking engagement with risk scenarios and preparedness strategies.

5.1. HOW VISUALIZATION SERVES RISK COMMUNICATION

Visualization has long played a central role in translating complex geodata about natural hazards into understandable forms. By making abstract risk infor mation visible, visualizations enable stakeholders to forecast, assess risk levels, and make informed decisions (MacEachren, 2004).

The functions of hazard visualization directly support the risk communication purposes established in chapter 4.2.:

Inform: Hazard visualizations condense complex data into formats that can in form both expert and public audiences about hazard type, location, probability, and potential impacts. They bridge the gap between technical systems (hydrolo gical models, seismic sensors) and public-facing awareness tools (Grainger et al., 2016).

Enabling Trust-Building: Visual representations of uncertainty can strengthen or undermine credibility depending on their design. When visualizations make their limitations and assumptions explicit, they support the transparency that effective risk communication requires.

Facilitating Shared Understanding: Maps and scenario visualizations can enable communication across different stakeholder groups. It creates common ground for dialogue about risk levels and management strategies.

In Switzerland, hazard visualization serves additional regulatory functions. Many hazard maps are legally binding documents that guide municipal zoning and building regulations, making visualization not only a communication tool but an instrument for enforcing protective measures and defining land-use restrictions (FOEN, 2020). Yet, despite this institutional commitment, the communicative impact of these visualizations is highly variable.

5.2. CURRENT APPROACHES AND THEIR LIMITATIONS

Switzerland maintains sophisticated hazard visualization systems ranging from static regulatory maps to interactive digital platforms.

They reveal how communication strategies shift depending on whether the target audience is experts, decision-makers, or the general public.

5.2.1. FORMS OF CURRENT VISUALIZATION

Static hazard maps remain the most used tool, produced at cantonal and municipal levels to delineate hazard zones such as floodplains, avalanche tracks, and rockfall corridors. While highly detailed and scientifically accurate, they are designed primarily for planners and engineers. For non-experts, color-coded zones often lack the context needed to understand personal implications. (BAFU, 2025)

Digital dashboards and interactive platforms have become increasingly popu lar. Swiss platforms such as map.geo.admin.ch or early-warning websites provi de real-time data. These tools combine maps with layered information, allowing users to zoom in. While they offer transparency and inclusivity, they also require a higher level of data literacy and can overwhelm non-expert users with too many options (Hullman, 2020).

Infographics and educational materials illustrate hazards into more accessible formats like explanatory brochures and animations. While these lower the th reshold for public understanding, they risk oversimplifying dynamic processes and may not address the locally specific concerns that drive individual prepar edness decisions (Grainger et al., 2016).

Exhibitions and installations translate hazards into tangible, often immersive experiences. The Goldauer Erlebnishalle, for example, uses panoramic video to reconstruct the catastrophic rockfall from 1806. Such formats engage visitors emotionally and keep collective memory alive (Birkholz et al., 2014).

Taken together, these forms reveal the range of visualization practices. From the regulatory precision of hazard maps to the narrative and emotional resonance of exhibitions.

5.2.2. PERSISTENT LIMITATIONS

Despite institutional commitment to hazard mapping and public informa tion, Swiss hazard visualization faces several challenges that limit effectiveness of communication:

Accesability and literacy barriers: Abstract data formats and generic classi fications make it difficult for non-experts to interpret hazard information and understand personal implications. (Hullman, 2020).

Design accessibility issues: Visual conventions like symbols and color schemes that work for experts may irritate the communities they aim to inform.

Uncertainty communication challenges: Showing probability ranges can con fuse people. On the other hand, when information gets oversimplified to avoid confusion, it can make people overconfident instead. (Lundgren & McMakin, 2009).

These limitations create a gap between the availability of high-quality hazard data in Switzerland and its actionability for the diverse publics who must ulti mately prepare for and respond to risks. The challenge lies not in data quality or technical sophistication, but in the translation between expert knowledge systems and public understanding.

5.3. FROM CONVENTIONAL TO CONTEXTUAL

VISUALIZATION Conventional forms of hazard visualization (Chapter 5.2.1.), remain cent ral to planning and communication. They make risks visible, but often at the cost of stripping them from their spatial context. As Grainger et al. (2016) states, en vironmental data visualization for non-scientific audiences is often expert-centric in design, which risks alienating or confusing the very groups it aims to inform. They highlight that successful visualization in this context must account for dif fering levels of data literacy, local relevance, and emotional engagement, moving beyond simply “showing the data” toward framing it in ways that align with audi ence needs and lived experience.

This connects to broader conversations about data representation and mea ning-making. The concept of “warm data”, developed by Bateson, offers a useful perspective. Warm data a refers to information that gains meaning through relati onships, context, and interconnection rather than through isolation and abstracti on. Unlike “cold data” that focuses on discrete measurements and classifications, warm data emphasizes the patterns and contexts that give information relevance. (IBI, 2025)

Applied to hazard visualization, this helps explain why technically accurate maps may fail to resonate with public audiences. Cold data approaches present hazards as red zones or probability percentages that require specialized knowledge to interpret. Warm data approaches would embed hazard information within the relational contexts that give it meaning.

This conceptual shift from cold to warm data representation points toward vi sualization approaches that prioritize contextual understanding over technical precision alone. Reconizing that effective risk communication depends not only on accurate data but on data that can be meaningfully interpreted within people's existing spatial and social frameworks.

The swisstopo prototype demonstrated one direction for this exploration. By making geodata browsing and exploration fun through haptic interaction, the prototype showed that embodied engagement could lower barriers to spatial information. Rather than requiring specialized knowledge to interpret abstract representations, users could discover and explore data through natural physical interaction. The positive response to these haptic dimensions suggested that such approaches could make complex spatial datasets more accessible to broader au diences.

This prototype experience, while limited in scope, pointed toward broader pos sibilities for hazard visualization. If geodata exploration can be made engaging and intuitive through physical interaction, similar approaches might address the accessibility challenges that conventional hazard visualizations face with non expert audiences.

6.1. DEFINING IMMERSIVE TECHNOLOGIES

Immersive technologies are defined as technologies that create a simula ted experience perceived by the user as real, including Virtual Reality, Augmen ted Reality, and Mixed Reality (“Immersive Technologies”, 2025).

These technologies are positioned along the “Reality-Virtuality (RV) Continuum” (Fig. 12), first introduced by Milgram and Kishino (1994), where physical reality sits at one end and fully virtual environments at the other.

6.1.1. VIRTUAL REALITY

Virtual Reality (VR) immerses the user entirely in a computer-genera ted environment, effectively replacing their physical surroundings and creating a complete sense of presence in a synthetic environment. Users can explore and interact with that environment through specialized hardware, software and sen sory synchronicity. It often includes auditory or haptic feedback to enhance pre sence. VR is shown on large screens, in special rooms (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment, or CAVE for short), or via a head-mounted display (HMD). VR is widely used in training, simulation, and education, providing fully immersive experiences. (“Virtuelle Realität”, 2025)

6.1.2. AUGMENTED REALITY

Augmented Reality (AR) enhances the physical world by overlaying digi tal information, such as visual elements, audio or other sensory stimulation. Users maintain connection to their physical reality while adding digital enhancements. (Rokhsaritalemi et al., 2020)

AR has been implemented across diverse sectors like archaeology, medicine, education, construction, and tourism.

6.1.3. MIXED REALITY

Mixed Reality (MR) represents the fusion of physical and digital worlds, enabling natural and intuitive three-dimensional interactions between humans, computers, and environments.

Even though MR is a broader category that includes AR, now a days it is com monly differentiated from AR by its enhanced capability for interaction between real and virtual objects or worlds through gestures, voice, and movement (Rokh saritalemi et al., 2020).

Mixed Reality (MR) environments are characterized by three key terms (Rokh saritalemi et al., 2020):

• Immersion is the real-time processing of user environment. This is typi cally achieved without the use of external controllers, instead relying on natural input methods such as gestures, gaze, and voice.
• Interaction describes the user's ability to engage with both virtual and physical elements within the MR space.
• Information (or environment) relates to the spatial and temporal regist ration of virtual objects, allowing them to appear meaningfully anchored within the user's physical world.

MR display tools can be grouped into four types: head-mounted displays, hand held devices, monitor-based systems, and projection-based displays. The effecti veness of these tools depends largely on two factors: user comfort (such as heat management) and the level of immersion (such as the field of view), both of which influence usability and the overall quality of experience.

In terms of visualization technology, MR environments typically use either opti cal see-through or video see-through systems. Optical see-through allows users to view the real world directly through transparent displays, such as smart glasses. In contrast, video see-through systems present a combined view of real and virtu al content on a display. (Rokhsaritalemi et al., 2020)

6.2. MR AFFORDANCES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

COMMUNICATION Mixed Reality offers several affordances that align particularly well with the needs of environmental risk communication, especially in addressing the vi sualization limitations identified in previous chapters.

Spatial Anchoring and Context Preservation MR's capacity for context-aware overlays enables direct registration of ha zard information onto physical environments. MR can present flood scenarios directly on actual streets, or landslide risks on visible slopes. This spatial an choring addresses the limitation of conventional visualizations that strip hazard information from its spatial context.

Embodied Interaction and Natural Engagement Research in embodied cognition demonstrates that people understand complex information more effectively when they can engage with it through phy sical interaction and spatial exploration (Johnson-Glenberg, 2018). MR enables users to “walk” around hazard scenarios and interact with them through natural gestures rather than abstract interfaces. This embodied engagement can lower barriers to complex information, making technical hazard data more accessible to non-expert audiences.

VR AR MR VR AR MR VR AR LOW MEDIUM IMMERSION INTERACTION INFORMATION HIGH Real time spatial mapping for merging real, virtual Interaction with physical, virtual Registered in 3d space, correlation to user space, Time persistence Fully virtual Interaction with virtual object Annotated in 3d space, No-correlation to user spce, No-Time persistence Augmenting real world Interaction with physical object Registered in 3d space, No-correlation to user spce, No-Time persistence

Multi-perspective Visualization MR supports viewing hazard scenarios from multiple perspectives, ground level, elevated viewpoints, or cross-sectional views, enabling users to build com prehensive mental models of how hazards might affect their environment.

Collaborative Spatial Understanding MR applications can support multiple users experiencing and discussing the same spatial information simultaneously.

These affordances position MR as particularly suitable for addressing the "warm data" challenge discussed in the visualization chapter, creating information ex periences that gain meaning through spatial relationships and contextual under standing.

Billinghurst et al. (2015) notes that spatial computing enables users to move from “viewing” data to inhabiting it, offering new opportunities for engagement, reflec tion, and behavioral insight. This is further supported by Grainger et al. (2016), who argue that “narrative-based visualizations, especially when personalized or location-specific, have been shown to increase engagement and comprehension among general audiences.” Their findings support the use of spatial, immersive technologies that align environmental data with people’s lived experiences.

These insights highlight the potential of MR to support more accessible and em bodied ways of learning about natural hazards. MR can bridge gaps in data liter acy and make complex information more tangible.

6.3. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND

RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION Responsible implementation requires careful attention to both technical limitations and ethical considerations.

6.3.1. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

Environmental Registration: Outdoor environments present tracking and registration challenges compared to controlled indoor spaces. Maintaining accurate spatial alignment between virtual hazard information and physical features requires robust methods that function across varied lighting conditions and GPS limitations.

Hardware Accessibility: Current MR hardware remains expensive and requires technical literacy, potentially excluding people. Design approaches should consi der parallel low-tech alternatives and plan for broader accessibility as technology develops.

Content Development Complexity: Creating accurate, locally relevant hazard scenarios requires technical expertise, designers, and stakeholder engagement. The complexity of this process may limit scalability but is essential for credibility and relevance.

These challenges lead to high content development cost, limited hardware acces sibility and a requirement for robust technical infrastructure. (Rokhsaritalemi et al., 2020)

6.3.2. ETHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Immersive risk communication can produce unintended psychological ef fects that must be carefully managed. Research documents mixed outcomes from VR disaster simulations - while some users become more cautious, others develop overconfidence or reduced perceived urgency (Bernhardt, 2019). Repeated expo sure can lead to habituation effects that diminish impact over time (Jiuyi et al., 2024). Additionally, cybersickness affects up to two-thirds of VR users, potenti ally excluding vulnerable populations (Stanney et al., 2021).

These concerns highlight the need for design approaches that prioritize user agen cy and constructive action over dramatic simulation. Rather than creating anxiety without empowerment, applications should connect risk understanding to specific preparedness actions while emphasizing individual and collective capacity for risk reduction.

These concerns highlight the importance of responsible design practices, which are integrated into the guidelines developed later in this thesis.

7.1. DEFINITION

Spatially intuitive communication is defined as a design approach that ap plies people's natural spatial understanding and embodied experience to make complex information more accessible and personally relevant. This approach ad dresses the persistent challenge of translating abstract technical data into formats that resonate with non-expert audiences in their lived environments. Much of this disconnect arises because three-dimensional environmental processes are routi nely flattened into two-dimensional data formats during collection and storage, losing the spatial context that people need to understand how these processes might affect their lived spaces. Unlike conventional communication methods that rely primarily on symbolic interpretation or specialized knowledge, spatially in tuitive communication works with the spatial reasoning abilities that people use naturally to navigate and understand their world.

7.1.1. CORE CHARACTERISTICS

The concept rests on four foundational characteristics that distinguish it from traditional approaches to information design:

Spatial grounding refers to anchoring information within physical locations or spatial relationships that audiences can directly relate to. Rather than presenting data as abstract statistics or generalized maps, spatially grounded communication connects information to specific places people know, for example their neighbor hood, their daily routes, or familiar landmarks. This transforms remote data into situated knowledge.

Intuitive engagement means designing interactions that work with how people naturally process spatial information through movement, visual-spatial memo ry, and embodied experience. Instead of requiring users to learn new symbolic systems or technical vocabularies, intuitive engagement taps into existing spatial competencies such as perspective-taking, distance estimation, and three-dimen sional reasoning.

Contextual relevance ensures that information is presented within the spatial context where it becomes meaningful and actionable. This goes beyond simple location-awareness to consider how people experience and move through spaces, what spatial relationships matter to them, and how their understanding of place influences their interpretation of information. In mixed reality applications, this translates to context-aware overlays that adapt information presentation based on user location, environmental conditions, and situational relevance.

Embodied interaction enables people to engage with information through na tural behaviors: looking around, moving through space, manipulating objects, or exploring from different viewpoints. This physical engagement supports active meaning-making and helps bridge the gap between abstract data and personal understanding.

However, spatially intuitive communication differs from existing approaches by explicitly using spatial dimensions to make environmental data more tangible. The approach centers on how people's embodied relationship with space can ser ve as a foundation for understanding complex information. By placing that information in situ within the environments where it becomes relevant, it offers a distinct alternative to conventional communication methods.

While spatially intuitive communication could be realized through various me dia, mixed reality technologies offer particularly promising affordances for this approach. MR's capacity for context-aware overlays enables the direct registration of information onto physical environments, while its support for embodied inter action allows users to engage with data through natural gestures. Recent advan ces in computing power and cloud storage also make accessing comprehensive geodata across Switzerland's territory increasingly feasible for MR applications. Given this thesis's research focus on mixed reality applications for natural hazard communication, MR technologies receive particular attention in the design gui delines that follow.

7.2. APPLICATION TO NATURAL HAZARD COMMUNICATION

In the context of natural hazards, spatially intuitive communication ad dresses specific challenges that conventional approaches struggle to resolve. Tra ditional hazard maps and warning systems often fail to connect with public un derstanding because they present risks as abstract zones or statistical probabilities rather than as threats to specific places that matter to people. Spatially intuitive communication would instead enable people to explore hazard scenarios within the spatial contexts they inhabit like their homes, their communities, their daily landscapes. In practice, this might mean overlaying flood risk data directly onto the streets people walk daily or allowing someone to physically manipulate a 3D model of their valley to understand landslide scenarios. The "intuitive" part comes from tapping into spatial reasoning skills everyone already has, while the “spatial” part grounds abstract risks in concrete, familiar places.

When individuals assess whether they might be affected by flooding, landslides, or other hazards, they think in terms of familiar spatial relationships: how water flows through their valley, which slopes appear unstable, or how their building relates to nearby infrastructure. Spatially intuitive communication tools would support and enhance the spatial reasoning rather than requiring people to transla te between abstract representations and their environment.

The concept provides guidance for designing communication tools that can strengthen both individual preparedness and collective responsibility. By groun ding hazard information in shared spatial experiences, these tools can support the development of common vocabularies and shared understanding that effective risk governance requires.

9.1. CORE CONTRIBUTION: SPATIALLY INTUITIVE COMMUNICATION

The main conceptual contribution of this thesis is the proposal of spatially intuitive communication as a design approach. This approach applies people's natural spatial understanding and embodied experience to make complex infor mation more accessible and personally relevant. It builds on four core charac teristics: spatial grounding, intuitive engagement, contextual relevance, and em bodied interaction.

In natural hazard communication, this means moving from abstract representa tions of risk toward experiences that situate hazard information within the places people know and care about. By grounding environmental data in lived spatial contexts, communication tools can help bridge the gap between expert systems and public understanding.

9.2. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The design guidelines developed in chapter 8 translate this conceptual approach into practical considerations for MR applications. They emphasize precise spatial anchoring, local specificity, natural interaction, exploratory learning, personal actionability, collaborative discussion, transparency, and inclusivity.

These guidelines position MR not as a replacement for hazard maps, dashboards, or expert communication, but as a complementary layer that can make existing data more tangible and meaningful. Responsible implementation requires atten tion to technical limitations, stakeholder needs, ethical implications, and accessi bility barriers.

9.3. SWISS CONTEXT AND RELEVANCE

This research focuses on Switzerland as the local context for investigation, and it proves particularly relevant to Switzerland's risk management paradigm, which emphasizes shared responsibility. This makes the topic urgent: if collective preparedness depends on shared understanding, then tools that can create com mon vocabularies and enable exploratory engagement with risk scenarios become essential.

The research also acknowledges Switzerland's rich geodata infrastructure and institutional commitment to transparency while recognizing that data availability does not automatically translate to public understanding. By focusing on recont extualization rather than data collection, the approach works with existing insti tutional strengths while addressing gaps.

9.4. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

For design practice, this research shows how spatial and embodied approaches can make environmental data more accessible without sacrificing accuracy. The emphasis on local anchoring, scenario exploration, and natural interaction provides concrete directions for designers working at the intersection of data vi sualization and immersive media.

For institutions involved in risk communication, the work suggests hypotheses for future testing: that even modest steps toward spatial contextualization, such as anchoring information to recognizable landmarks or supporting “what if” ex ploration, might improve public engagement. The guidelines emphasize iterative stakeholder testing, ensuring that innovations serve rather than exclude vulnerab le populations.

For research, spatially intuitive communication opens new questions about how immersive technologies reshape risk understanding and action. Future work could explore applications beyond natural hazards to climate adaptation, urban planning, or environmental decision-making more broadly. Something like col laborative mixed reality environments that enable multiple users to explore and discuss risks together represent a particularly promising direction.

9.5. LIMITATIONS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This thesis is primarily conceptual and design-oriented. Empirical valida tion through user testing and longitudinal studies remains essential future work. The guidelines proposed here require testing with diverse stakeholder groups.

Mixed reality's accessibility challenges, from hardware costs to cybersickness susceptibility, highlight the importance of future research into how spatially in tuitive communication could be adapted across different media and interaction modes to ensure broader accessibility.

The thesis also acknowledges challenges of immersive risk communication. The design guidelines explicitly address these concerns through principles like desig ning for agency rather than fear and supporting short, comfortable sessions.

9.6. FINAL REFLECTION

Natural hazards in Switzerland are intensifying, but they are not only technical challenges, they are communicative ones. Risk communication can be nefit from expanding linear communication models toward interactive experien ces. This thesis contributes to this by proposing spatially intuitive communication as a bridge between environmental data and peoples environment.

Switzerland's commitment to shared responsibility in risk management creates an opportunity for communication tools that truly enable shared understanding. By making risks more tangible and situating them within familiar contexts, spatially intuitive communication approaches can support the collective preparedness that Switzerland's changing risk landscape demands.

This research represents one step toward risk communication that is not only scientifically accurate but also humanly meaningful. Connecting to the places where people live, work, and make decisions about their safety and that of their communities.

10.1. SWISSTOPO DESIGN SPRINT

The Connect project with swisstopo (Federal Office of Topography) marks the real beginning of this work. For the design sprint, a small group of students were tasked to create concepts for a new AR experience for their GeoLab exhi bition room in Bern. The goal was to make their work and by extension geodata tangible for the visitors. I developed two concept that approached geodata as a spatial experience rather than a map interface. The first concept was about haptically searching through swisstopos geodata. Instead of navigating data through search fields and layers, users could explore it directly in MR through haptical movement. The second idea was about stepping into a point cloud landscape and snaping a selfie, while being surrounded by geodata. Using the snapshot as a souvenir postcard they could take home and maybe even use it as a conversation starter at home. I still value the playfulness of these concepts. Their greatest potential lay in spar king curiosity and encouraging people to explore geodata for themselves. This project furthermore introduced ideas that continued to appear throughout la ter prototypes. One was haptic exploration as a way of engaging with information. Another was the idea that data can become something people experience rather than simply observe.

10.2. EMBODIED SPATIAL DATA INTERACTION

This phase was mainly experimental and explored how people might in teract with spatial data in MR. Before looking at existing MR interaction conventions, I recorded my own mo vements while imagining different interactions with the landscape and potenti al data overlays. The goal was not to design gestures but to observe which mo vements felt intuitive. How could I navigate through information? How could I manipulate something that exists as part of the environment rather than inside an interface? The recordings revealed recurring patterns and intentions. Afterwards, I analysed common MR gesture conventions and organised them into a gesture taxonomy based on their intended function. This taxonomy provi ded a framework for comparing established interaction patterns with my recor ded movements. By mapping my own gestures onto these categories, it became possible to identify where intuitive movements aligned with existing conventions and where they suggested alternative ways of interacting with your surroundings. The findings were then explored through a series of video prototypes. Using first-person recordings and simple visual effects, I investigated how spatial data and bodily movement could become part of the same experience. The video pro totypes suggested ways in which bodily movement could become a means of navigating and interacting with spatial data. Rather than developing a new gesture language, this phase was about understan ding the relationship between movement, intention, and information in MR. The experiments explored interaction as a form of discovery rather than control.

10.3. EMBODIED DATA THROUGH SIMULATION

10.3..Embodied Data through Simulation

The gesture experiments were accompanied by a broader ideation phase that produced numerous storyboards and speculative concepts. Some focused on interaction, while others explored how environmental information itself could be experienced in space. The ideas that felt most convincing were often not those with the most elaborate interactions, but those that made otherwise invisible pro cesses visible. This observation gradually shifted the direction of the project. Earlier concepts were strongly focused on interaction and exploratory discovery. While these ideas often felt engaging and playful, they also revealed a recurring challenge. The more attention users had to dedicate to learning an interaction, the less attention remained for understanding the information itself. At the same time, many storyboard concepts relied on simulation. Rather than representing data as a static layer, they attempted to reveal relationships, conse quences, and changes over time. This became increasingly interesting throughout development. Environmental processes are often difficult to understand because of the many factors that can influence one single event. Simulation offered a way to make these processes visible and easier to discuss. The ideation phase eventually led to the development of two proof-of-concept scenarios. The first focuses on water runoff and infiltration. The second explores air quality through real-time environmental data. While both topics differ in sca le and complexity, they share the same underlying goal: making environmental processes visible within the user's physical context. The runoff scenario focuses on a process that is highly spatial but often diffi cult to imagine from data alone. Terrain models, infiltration values, and hydro logical datasets contain detailed information, yet interpreting them requires ex pert knowledge. At the same time, runoff directly influences how water moves through landscapes and how environmental risks develop. Through simulation, water movement becomes visible. Users can observe where water accumulates, how it travels across a terrain, and how infiltration changes the outcome. Rather than presenting information as isolated measurements, the prototype focuses on relationships and cause and effect. The simulation is based on an existing particle-based fluid system developed by an independent creator and adapted for use in MR. The system was extended with runoff and infiltration logic and optimized to run on the Meta Quest head set. While simplified, it provided a foundation for exploring how hydrological information could be communicated spatially rather than through conventional visualization methods. The air quality scenario approaches a different challenge. Unlike water movement, air pollution is highly invisible. Most people encounter it through weather appli cations, or air quality indices. While these representations are useful, they provide little sense of how air quality differs between locations or changes over time.

To address this, the prototype translates real-time environmental measurements retrieved through an API into a spatial particle simulation. Pollutant concentra tions influence the density of visible particles, while color differences distinguish between pollutant categories. The implementation builds upon the same particle system used for the runoff simulation but adapts its behavior to create a floating and continuously changing representation of air quality. Several iterations focused on readability and comparability. Early versions varied particle size, transparency, and density simultaneously. Although visually interes ting, this made comparisons between locations difficult. Later versions reduced the number of changing visual variables and relied primarily on particle density to communicate differences in air quality. This created a clearer relationship bet ween the underlying data and its visual representation. The use of real-time data also points towards future applications beyond the sco pe of this thesis. The successful integration of live environmental information suggests that similar approaches could be applied to a wider range of environ mental datasets and monitoring systems. Both scenarios function as communicative representations rather than scientifi cally accurate simulations. Their purpose is not to replicate environmental phen omena perfectly, but to make them more tangible and easier to discuss. The focus is on understanding rather than precision or visual realism. Accessibility became increasingly important throughout development. Earlier projects often prioritized exploration and experimentation. In the final prototype, accessibility became a primary design consideration. Interaction controls were simplified, visual complexity was reduced where possible, and additional contex tual information was integrated through optional information panels. The outcome should be understood as a proof of concept rather than a finished product. It demonstrates one possible approach to communicating environmental information through MR. It reflects a shift that occurred throughout the project. Understanding often depends less on interaction itself and more on how informa tion is contextualized and communicated. The final prototype became an explo ration of that idea.

10.4. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

10.4..Limitations and Future Work

Several limitations influenced the outcome of this project. One of the most significant was the technical limitation of the hardware and development environment. The final prototype was developed for Meta Quest 3 headset. Even though this I sone of the flagship models in the industry it has limited processing power. Relatively small changes to visual effects, such as in creasing transparency of the particles, could lead to performance issues and ap plication crashes. These limitations influenced many design decisions. Visualizations often had to balance readability, performance, and visual fidelity. More realistic simulations were considered during development but were not always feasible within the avai lable hardware constraints. At the same time, this project represents my first larger development project. Throughout the process, technical decisions were shaped not only by hardware limitations but also by my own experience and the available timeframe. Certain concepts remained at the storyboard stage because their implementation would have exceeded my capabilities and therefore the project's scope. One example is the representation of water. While the final runoff simulation successfully communicates water movement and infiltration, a more visually re alistic representation would have required significantly more technical optimiz ation to run smoothly on the headset. Similar compromises occurred throughout the project. These constraints shaped the final prototype, but they also helped define its focus. Rather than pursuing technical realism, the project increasingly concentrated on communication and understanding. The final outcome should therefore be under stood within the technical and practical limitations under which it was developed.

12.3. CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE

The guidelines within this category address uncertainty, scenario explora tion, and context-aware information delivery. Together they move beyond representation and begin to address decision-making and preparedness. While these ideas remain compelling, they are also difficult to evaluate through my design prototype alone. Many of the intended outcomes depend on long-term use and real-world application. Questions around uncertainty communication, local decision-making, and personal relevance require further investigation beyond the scope of this project. Despite this, the category still feels important and relevant for future work in this realm.

12.4. EMBODIED INTERACTION

This category prompted the strongest reconsideration of its original fra ming. Looking at the guidelines today, I find that they are less concerned with interaction mechanics than their title suggests. Comfortable session management, constructive risk responses, and collaborative spatial experiences all focus on what users do with an experience rather than how they control it. This raises the question of whether Embodied Interaction is the most appropriate name. The category appears to describe a broader relationship between people, information, and decision-making. While embodiment remains important, it may not be the defining characteristic of the category. The practical work also highlighted a distinction between engagement and com munication. Many of the early interaction experiments generated curiosity and encouraged exploration. They were valuable as a design research tool and helped uncover alternative ways of engaging with spatial information. However, curiosity alone did not necessarily lead to clearer communication. As the project developed, the focus gradually shifted towards participation, ac cessibility, and understanding rather than interaction for its own sake. The gui delines themselves still feel relevant, but this is the category I would revisit most critically if the guidlines were developed further.

12.5. CROSS-CUTTING

The Cross-Cutting category became increasingly relevant in my prototy pes. Unlike the other categories, these guidelines are not tied to a specific aspect of MR. Instead, they address broader considerations that influence the entire de sign process. Progressive disclosure, transparency, stakeholder integration, and graceful de gradation all operate across multiple levels of a system. They influence how information is structured, how limitations are communicated, and how different audiences engage with a project. This category feels less tied to MR and more connected to responsible informa tion design. Many of these considerations would remain relevant regardless of platform or technology. Some guidelines remain difficult to assess. One example is the idea of creating shared understanding between experts and non-experts. This was one of the mo tivations behind the project and continues to be an interesting direction. However, the final prototype was never tested in a real participatory setting. As a result, I cannot say whether it actually supports communication between different stake holder groups. At this stage, it remains an assumption that would require further investigation. The same applies to transparency and trust. The project incorporates design de cisions intended to support both, but evaluating their effectiveness would require user studies and longer-term observation.

12.6. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION NOTES

The Technical Implementation Notes originally functioned as supporting considerations accompanying the guidelines. But they deserve greater attention than I initially gave them. Spatial accuracy, hardware limitations, multi-user synchronization, and com puting power are often discussed as technical challenges. During development, however, it became clear that they directly influence design decisions. Techni cal limitations shape how data can be visualized, and which interactions remain feasible. Rather than existing as a foot note, these considerations influence all categories simultaneously. In this sense, they are not merely implementation concerns but active design constraints. Future versions of the guidelines could make this relationship more explicit. Technical realities do not simply affect execution. They influence the communi cation possibilities of the medium itself.

12.7. CLOSING REFLECTION

Overall, the prototyping process did not fundamentally change the gui delines. It helped clarify which guidelines became most relevant in practice and where further refinement may be needed. Spatial Grounding remained the stron gest category, while Embodied Interaction raised the most questions regarding its current framing. Several aspects of the guidelines, particularly those related to shared understanding and stakeholder participation, remain areas for future research.