Digital Participation Models as Public Engagement Tools in Planning: A Concept Exploration

References

• Aguilar, R., Flacke, J., & Pfeffer, K. (2020). Towards supporting collaborative spatial planning: Conceptualization of a maptable tool through user stories. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9010029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbar, A., Flacke, J., Martinez, J., Aguilar, R., & van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2020). Knowing my village from the sky: A collaborative spatial learning framework to integrate spatial knowledge of stakeholders in achieving sustainable development goals. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(9), 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9090515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2021). Digital urban planning platforms: The interplay of digital and local embeddedness in urban planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 10(3), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.20210701.oa3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. (2019). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ash, J., Kitchin, R., & Leszczynski, A. (2018). Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 42(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516664800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspen, D. M., & Amundsen, A. (2021). Developing a participatory planning support system for sustainable regional planning – A problem structuring case study. Sustainability, 13(10), 5723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, M., Coaffee, J., & Sherriff, G. (2007). Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial planning system. Planning Practice and Research, 22(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450601173371
   Google Scholar
• Billger, M., Thuvander, L., & Wästberg, B. S. (2017). In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(6), 1012–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516657341
   Google Scholar
• Boland, P., Durrant, A., McHenry, J., McKay, S., & Wilson, A. (2022). A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: Digitization, digitalization, and democratization. International Planning Studies, 27(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2021.1979942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouzguenda, I., Fava, N., & Alalouch, C. (2022). Would 3D digital participatory planning improve social sustainability in smart cities? An empirical evaluation study in Less-Advantaged areas. Journal of Urban Technology, 29(3), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2021.1900772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Dembski, F., Wössner, U., Letzgus, M., Ruddat, M., & Yamu, C. (2020). Urban digital twins for smart cities and citizens: the case study of Herrenberg, Germany. Sustainability, 12(6), 2307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Macmillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faliu, B., Siarheyeva, A., Lou, R., & Merienne, F. (2019). Design and prototyping of an interactive virtual environment to foster citizen participation and creativity in urban design. In B. Andersson, B. Johansson, C. Barry, M. Lang, H. Linger, & C. Schneider (Eds.), Advances in information systems development: Designing digitalization, lecture notes in information systems and organisation (pp. 55–78). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22993-1
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaas, E., Hjerpe, M., Karlson, M., & Neset, T.-S. (2020). Visualization for citizen participation: User perceptions on a mainstreamed online participatory tool and its usefulness for climate change planning. Sustainability, 12(2), 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, R. (2023). The 20 minute neighbourhood becomes source of fear. Planning News, 49(2), 8–9.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, E., Schirra, S., & Hollander, J. (2011). Immersive planning: A conceptual model for designing public participation with new technologies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(3), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1068/b37013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gower, A., & Grodach, C. (2022). Planning innovation or city branding?: Exploring how cities operationalise the20-minute neighbourhood concept. Urban Policy and Research, 40(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2021.2019701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gower, A., Hotker, M., & Grodach, C. (2022). Digital city modeling and emerging directions in public participation in planning. In R. Brears (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of urban and regional futures (pp. 1–7). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_292-1
   Google Scholar
• Grodach, C., & Limb, M. (2020). Compact city reset: Towards alternatives to market-driven density. Urban Policy and Research, 38(4), 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2020.1827543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., & McCarthy, T. J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2006). Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic planning. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500421196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houghton, K., Miller, E., & Foth, M. (2014). Integrating ICT into the planning process: Impacts, opportunities and challenges. Australian Planner, 51(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.770771
   Google Scholar
• International Association for Public Participation. (2021). Public participation pillars [WWW Document]. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/Communications/A3_P2_Pillars_brochure.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kahila-Tani, M., Kytta, M., & Geertman, S. (2019). Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 186, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan, Z., Dambruch, J., Peters-Anders, J., Sackl, A., Strasser, A., Fröhlich, P., Templer, S., & Soomro, K. (2017). Developing knowledge-based citizen participation platform to support smart city decision making: The smarticipate case study. Information, 8(2), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8020047
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R., Cardullo, P., & Feliciantonio, C. (2018). Citizenship, justice and the right to the smart city. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b8aq5
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R., Young, G., & Dawkins, O. (2021). Planning and 3D spatial media: Progress, prospects, and the knowledge and experiences of local government planners in Ireland. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1921832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levenda, A. M., Keough, N., Rock, M., & Miller, B. (2020). Rethinking public participation in the smart city. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes, 64(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12601
   Google Scholar
• Liamputtong, P. (2011). Virtual focus group methodology: Principle and practice. SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Lieven, C., Lüders, B., Kulus, D., & Thoneick, R. (2021). Enabling digital Co-creation in urban planning and development. In A. Zimmermann, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Human centred intelligent systems, smart innovation, systems and technologies (pp. 415–430). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5784-2_34
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, J., Asada, S., & Tomarchio, L. (2020). Engaging the crowd: Lessons for outreach and tool design from a creative online participatory study. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 9(2), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2020040101.oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, R., McCarthy, N., Picketts, I., Davis, F., Hovem, G., & Navarrete, S. (2021). Communicating complexity: Interactive model explorers and immersive visualizations as tools for local planning and community engagement. Facets, 6(1), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0045
   Google Scholar
• Newell, R., Picketts, I., & Dale, A. (2020). Community systems models and development scenarios for integrated planning: Lessons learned from a participatory approach. Community Development, 51(3), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1772334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, L., Fields, D., Landau-Ward, A., Rogers, D., Sadowski, J., Maalsen, S., Kitchin, R., Dawkins, O., Young, G., & Bates, L. K. (2019). PropTech and housing – The view from Melbourne. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(4), 575–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1651997
   Google Scholar
• Potts, R. (2020). Is a new ‘planning 3.0’ paradigm emerging? Exploring the relationship between digital technologies and planning theory and practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(2), 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1748699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, G., & Bernard, R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
   Google Scholar
• Safransky, S. (2020). Geographies of algorithmic violence: Redlining the smart city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 44(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt Olabisi, L., Blythe, S., Levine, R., Cameron, L., & Beaulac, M. (2016). Participatory, dynamic models: A tool for dialogue. In A. S. Parris, G. M. Garfin, K. Dow, R. Meyer, S. L. Close (Eds.), Climate in context. John (pp. 99–116). Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118474785.ch5
   Google Scholar
• Staffans, A., Kahila-Tani, M., Geertman, S., Sillanpää, P., & Horelli, L. (2020). Communication-oriented and process-sensitive planning support. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 9(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2020040101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanda, A., & De Marco, A. (2021). A review of an urban living lab initiative. Review of Policy Research, 38(3), 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoneick, R. (2021). Integrating online and onsite participation in urban planning: Assessment of a digital participation system. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 10(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2021010101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Totin, E., Butler, J. R., Sidibé, A., Partey, S., Thornton, P. K., & Tabo, R. (2018). Can scenario planning catalyse transformational change? Evaluating a climate change policy case study in Mali. Futures, 96, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Videira, N., Antunes, P., & Santos, R. (2017). Engaging stakeholders in environmental and sustainability decisions with participatory system dynamics modeling. In S. Gray, M. Paolisso, R. Jordan, S. Gray (Eds.), Environmental modeling with stakeholders (pp. 241–265). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25053-3_12
   Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H. (2002). Review of deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes, by J. Forester. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(1), 231–250. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611572
   Google Scholar
• Webster, C. W. R., & Leleux, C. (2018). Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity, 23(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, A., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2022). Digital participatory planning: citizen engagement, democracy and design. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, A., Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Comber, R. (2019). Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: App development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(2), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317712515
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Young, G., Kitchin, R., & Naji, J. (2021). Building city dashboards for different types of users. Journal of Urban Technology, 28(1–2), 2, 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1759994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar