Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning

References

• Afzalan, N. (2015). Participatory plan making: Whether and how online participatory tools are useful (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/37/39/3739587.html
   Google Scholar
• Afzalan, N., Evans-Cowley, J., & Mirzazad, M. (2015). From big to little data for natural disaster recovery: How online and on-the-ground activities are connected?A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 11(1), 153–180. Retrieved from http://­heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/isjlpsoc11&div=11&id=&page=
   Google Scholar
• Afzalan, N., & Muller, B. (2014). The role of social media in green infrastructure planning: A case study of neighborhood participation in park siting. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(3), 67–83. doi:10.1080/10630732.2014.940701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afzalan, N., & Sanchez, T. (2017). Testing the use of crowdsourced information: Case study of bike-share infrastructure planning in Cincinnati, Ohio. Urban Planning, 2(3), 33–44. doi:10.17645/up.v2i3.1013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T. W., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating smarter cities: Considerations for selecting online participatory tools. Cities, 67, 21–30. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahas, R., & Mark, Ü. (2005). Location based services: New challenges for planning and public administration?Futures, 37(6), 547–561. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alizadeh, T. (2015). A policy analysis of digital strategies: Brisbane vs. Vancouver. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6(2), 85–103. doi:10.1504/IJKBD.2015.071469
   Google Scholar
• Alizadeh, T. (2017). Urban digital strategies: Planning in the face of information technology? Journal of Urban Technology, 24(2), 35–49. doi:10.1080/10630732.2017.1285125
   Google Scholar
• Allwinkle, S., & Cruickshank, P. (2011). Creating smart-er cities: An overview. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 1–16. doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.601103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41(Suppl. 1), S3–S11. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamberg, J. (2013). Engaging the public with online discussion and spatial annotations: The generation and transformation of public knowledge. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(1), 39–56. doi:10.1080/14649357.2012.738306
   Google Scholar
• Barton, J., Plume, J., & Parolin, B. (2005). Public participation in a spatial decision support system for public housing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(6), 630–652. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2005.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Batty, M. (1995). Planning support systems and the new logic of computation. Regional Development Dialogue, 16(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1392296/
   Google Scholar
• Batty, M. (2013). Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 274–279.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bennett, L. V., & Manoharan, A. P. (2017). The use of social media policies by US municipalities. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 317–328. doi:10.1080/01900692.2015.1113182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berntzen, L., & Johannessen, M. R. (2016). The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: Lessons learned from Norway. In J. R.Gil-Garcia, T. A.Pardo, & T.Nam (Eds.), Smarter as the new urban agenda: A comprehensive view of the 21st century city (pp. 299–314). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Bishr, M., & Mantelas, L. (2008). A trust and reputation model for filtering and classifying knowledge about urban growth. GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 229–237. doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9182-4
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving an introduction and cases. International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 75–90. doi:10.1177/1354856507084420
   Google Scholar
• Brabham, D. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262. doi:10.1177/1473095209104824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabham, D. C., Sanchez, T. W., & Bartholomew, K. (2010, January). Crowdsourcing public participation in transit planning: Preliminary results from the next stop design case. Presentation at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Brody, S. D. (2003). Are we learning to make better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(2), 191–201. doi:10.1177/0739456X03258635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34. doi:10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budthimedhee, K., Li, J., & George, R. V. (2002). ePlanning: A snapshot of the literature on using the world wide web in urban ­planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(2), 227–246. doi:10.1177/088541202762475964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burby, R. J. (2007). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 37–41. doi:10.1080/01944360308976292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burby, R. J., Deyle, R. E., Godschalk, D. R., & Olshansky, R. B. (2000). Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review, 1(1), 99–106. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(99)
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2009). Rise of the network society, with a new preface: The Information Age: Economy, society, and culture, Volume I. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2011). The information age: Economy, society, and culture: Vol. 1. The rise of the network society. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cavallo, S., Lynch, J., & Scull, P. (2014). The digital divide in citizen-initiated government contacts: A GIS approach. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(4), 77–93. doi:10.1080/10630732.2014.942167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, A., & Mcmillan, A. (2017). Scenario planning for urban planners: Toward a practitioner’s guide. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(1), 17–29. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1038576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Close, C. H., & Hall, G. B. (2006). A GIS-based protocol for the collection and use of local knowledge in fisheries management planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(4), 341–352. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corburn, J. (2003). Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 420–433. doi:10.1177/0739456X03022004008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice (urban and industrial environments). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30(2), 147–177. doi:10.1177/0093650202250874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corsini, F., & Rizzi, F. (2015). Crowdsourcing urban sustainability: Data, people and technologies in participatory governance. Futures, 74, 93–106. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, W. J. (1998). The internet aids community participation in the planning process. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(4), 393–404. doi:10.1016/S0198-9715(98)00033-7
   Google Scholar
• Creighton, J. (1992). Involving citizens in community decision making: A guidebook. Washington, DC: Program for Community Problem Solving.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, S. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(Suupl. 1), S86–S102. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roo, G., & Silva, E. A. (Eds.). (2010). A planner’s encounter with complexity. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Deng, Z., Lin, Y., Zhao, M., & Wang, S. (2015). Collaborative planning in the new media age: The Dafo Temple controversy, China. Cities, 45, 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desouza, K. C., & Smith, K. L. (2016). Big data and planning (PAS Report No. 585). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. doi:10.1007/s13222-016-0214-9
   Google Scholar
• Drummond, W. J., & French, S. P. (2008). The future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 161–174. doi:10.1080/01944360801982146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertiö, T.-P. (2015). Participatory apps for urban planning—Space for improvement. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 303–321. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans-Cowley, J. (2011, February). Crowdsourcing the curriculum: Public participation in redesigning a planning program. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1760525
   Google Scholar
• Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 397–408. doi:10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
   Google Scholar
• Evans-Cowley, J., & Manta Conroy, M. (2006). The growth of ­e-government in municipal planning. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(1), 81–107. doi:10.1080/10630730600752892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fainstein, S., & Campbell, S. (2012). Readings in planning theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). The credibility of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 137–148. doi:10.1080/10630730600752892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279–295.
   Google Scholar
• Foth, M. (2006). Facilitating social networking in inner-city neighborhoods. Computer, 39(9), 44–50. doi:10.1109/MC.2006.305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foth, M. (2011). From social butterfly to engaged citizen: Urban informatics, social media, ubiquitous computing, and mobile technology to support citizen engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foth, M., Choi, J., & Satchell, C. (2011). Urban informatics. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1958826
   Google Scholar
• Fountain, J. E. (1998). Social capital: A key enabler of innovation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 25(2), 103–115. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/spp
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, A. (2014). Innovation in institutional collaboration: The role of interlocutors. ISS Working Paper Series/General Series, 584, 1–29. Retrieved from https://repub.eur.nl/pub/51129/
   Google Scholar
• Fredericks, J., & Foth, M. (2013). Augmenting public participation: Enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and Web 2.0. Australian Planner, 50(3), 244–256. doi:10.1080/07293682.2012.748083
   Google Scholar
• Godschalk, D. (2004). Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5–13. doi:10.1080/01944360408976334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godschalk, D., Parham, D., Porter, D., & Potapchuk, W. (1994). Pulling together: A planning and development consensus-building manual. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221. doi:10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y
   Google Scholar
• Goodchild, M. F., & Li, L. (2012). Assuring the quality of volunteered geographic information. Spatial Statistics, 1, 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.spasta.2012.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2015). Smart cities: Moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 79–92. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu013
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1068/b37013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouveia, C., & Fonseca, A. (2008). New approaches to environmental monitoring: The use of ICT to explore volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 185–197. doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9183-3
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2002). Bridging urban digital divides? Urban polarisation and information and communications technologies (ICTs). Urban Studies, 39(1), 33–56.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Volume I. Boston, MA: Beacon.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, B., Chipeniuk, R., Feick, R., Leahy, M., & Deparday, V. (2013). Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(5), 761–781. doi:10.1080/13658810903213288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, K. (2003). Grieving for a lost network: Collective action in a wired suburb special issue: ICTs and community networking. The Information Society, 19(5), 417–428. doi:10.1080/714044688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, K. (2007). Neighborhoods in the network society: The e-neighbors study. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 714–748. doi:10.1080/13691180701658061
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2002). The not so global village of Netville. In C.Haythornthwaite & B.Wellman (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 345–371). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277–311. doi:10.1046/j.1535-6841.2003.00057.x
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P., & Barrett, S. (1990). Structure and agency in land and property development processes: Some ideas for research. Urban Studies, 27(1), 89–103. doi:10.1080/00420989020080051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. (2007). How plan mandates work. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 86–99. doi:10.1080/01944360708976138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333–342.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey, A., Shilton, K., Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., & Srivastava, M. B. (2008). Participatory privacy in urban sensing. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Embedded Network Sensing.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. J., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). Can social media save a neighborhood organization?Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 248–269. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1051319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, P., Layard, A., Speed, C., & Lorne, C. (2015). MapLocal: Use of smartphones for crowdsourced planning. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 322–336. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1052940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamel Boulos, M. N., Resch, B., Crowley, D. N., Breslin, J. G., Sohn, G., Burtner, R., … Chuang, K.-Y. S. (2011). Crowdsourcing, citizen sensing and sensor web technologies for public and environmental health surveillance and crisis management: Trends, OGC standards and application examples. International Journal of Health Geographics, 10, 67. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-10-67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor, I. (2001). Towards participatory environmental management?Journal of Environmental Management, 63(3), 269–279. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khondker, H. H. (2011). Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, 8(5), 675–679. doi:10.1080/14747731.2011.621287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (2013). Lessons learned about planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(2), 161–169. doi:10.1080/01944363.2013.882647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasnova, H., Gunther, O., Spiekermann, S., & Koroleva, S. (2009). Privacy concerns and identity in online social networks. Identity in the Information Society, 2(1), 39–63. doi:10.1007/s12394-009-0019-1
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2011). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729–747. doi:10.1177/1461444811422894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, H., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Sustainable eGovernance? Practices, problems and beliefs about the future in Swedish eGov practice. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurian, L., & Shaw, M. M. (2008). Evaluation of public participation: The practices of certified planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 293–309. doi:10.1177/0739456X08326532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. H., Phaal, R., & Lee, S. H. (2013). An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development. Technological ­Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 286–306. doi:10.1016/j.­techfore.2012.09.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015. Retrieved from the Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
   Google Scholar
• Lim, M. (2012). Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: Social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 231–248. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01628.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longueville, B. D., Ostlander, N., & Keskitalo, C. (2010). Addressing vagueness in volunteered geographic information (VGI): A case study. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 5, 1725–1463. Retrieved from http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir
   Google Scholar
• Loukis, E., Janssen, M., Dawes, S., & Zheng, L. (2016). Evolving ICT and governance in organizational networks: Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Electronic Markets, 26(1), 7–14. doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0210-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandarano, L., & Meenar, M. (2015). e-Participation: Comparing trends in practice and the classroom. Planning Practice & Research, 30(4), 457–475. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1017933
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandarano, L., Meenar, M., & Steins, C. (2010). Building social capital in the digital age of civic engagement. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(2), 123–135. doi:10.1177/0885412210394102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margerum, R. (2002). Collaborative planning building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 237–253. doi:10.1177/0739456X0202100302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsden, J. (2013). Stigmergic self-organization and the improvisation of Ushahidi. Cognitive Systems Research, 21, 52–64. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2012.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcnutt, K. (2014). Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social collaborative technologies in a public sector context. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1), 49–70. doi:10.1111/capa.12058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minner, J. (2015). Recoding embedded assumptions: Adaptation of an open source tool to support sustainability, transparency and participatory governance. In S.Greetman, J.Ferreira, R.Goodspeed, & J.Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems and smart cities (pp. 409–425). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: A framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599–617. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Praharaj, S., Hoon, J., & Hawken, S. (2017). Innovative civic engagement and digital urban infrastructure: Lessons from 100 smart cities mission in India. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1423–1432. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.305
   Google Scholar
• Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.
   Google Scholar
• Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental land use planning and management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rhoads, M. (2010). Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: What does theory tell us and what have we learned so far?Journal of Planning Literature, 25(2), 111–122. doi:10.1177/0885412210382984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche, S., Propeck-Zimmermann, E., & Mericskay, B. (2011). GeoWeb and crisis management: Issues and perspectives of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal, 78(1), 21–40. doi:10.1007/s10708-011-9423-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruijer, E., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2017). Open data for democracy: Developing a theoretical framework for open data use. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 45–52. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y., & Pennington, M. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: The collective action problem and the ­potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5(2), 153–169. doi:10.1080/13549830050009328
   Google Scholar
• Saad-Sulonen, J. (2012). The role of the creation and sharing of digital media content in participatory e-planning. Journal of E-Planning Research, 1(2), 1–22. doi:10.4018/ijepr.2012040101
   Google Scholar
• Sawhney, N., de Klerk, C., & Malhotra, S. (2017). Civic engagement through DIY urbanism and collective networked action. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 337–354. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1054662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer, S., Haase, D., & Meyer, V. (2013). Towards a flood risk assessment ontology: Knowledge integration into a multi-criteria risk assessment approach. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 37, 82–94. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, L. (2014). Planning and social media: A case study of public transit and stigma on Twitter. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(3), 218–238. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.980439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, L., & Afzalan, N. (2017). 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: Four reasons why AICP needs an open data ethic. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(2), 161–167. doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1290495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, L., & Stephenson Jr, M. (2016). Planning, development, and media: A case study of the Woodrow Wilson bridge. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(2), 239–254.
   Google Scholar
• Seeger, C. J. (2008). The role of facilitated volunteered geographic information in the landscape planning and site design process. ­GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 199–213. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/journal/10708
   Google Scholar
• Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2012). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18. doi:10.1177/0885412212469112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton, T., Poorthuis, A., & Zook, M. (2015). Social media and the city: Rethinking urban socio-spatial inequality using user-generated geographic information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 198–211. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiode, N. (2010). Urban planning, information technology, and cyberspace. Journal of Urban Technology, 7(2), 105–126. doi:10.1080/713684111
   Google Scholar
• Shklovski, I., Palen, L., & Sutton, J. (2008). Finding community through information and communication technology in disaster response. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 127–136). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Sieber, R. (2007). Geowebfor social change. Retrieved from http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2015). Civic engagement in the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/
   Google Scholar
• Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: Building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Media & Society, 8(3), 421–440. doi:10.1177/1461444806061953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratigea, A., Papadopoulou, C.-A., & Panagiotopoulou, M. (2015). Tools and technologies for planning the development of smart cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(2), 43–62. doi:10.1080/10630732.2015.1018725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayebi, A. (2013a). “Communihood”: A less formal or more local form of community in the age of the internet. Journal of Urban Technology, 20(2), 77–91. doi:10.1080/10630732.2013.769317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayebi, A. (2013b). Planning activism: Using social media to claim marginalized citizens’ right to the city. Cities, 32, 88–93. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakuriah, P. V., Tilahun, N. Y., & Zellner, M. (2017). Big data and urban informatics: Innovations and challenges to urban planning and knowledge discovery. In P. V.Thakuriah, N. Y.Tilahun, & M.Zellner (Eds.), Seeing cities through big data (pp. 11–45). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, A. M. (2001). Network cities and the global structure of the internet. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(10), 1697–1716. doi:10.1177/00027640121957998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Van Herzele, A. (2004). Local knowledge in action: Valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2), 197–212. doi:10.1177/0739456X04267723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kerkhoff, L., & Lebel, L. (2006). Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 445–477. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102405.170850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zoonen, L. (2016). Privacy concerns in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 472–480. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viitanen, J., & Kingston, R. (2014). Smart cities and green growth: Outsourcing democratic and environmental resilience to the global ­technology sector. Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 803–819. Retrieved from http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a46242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waddell, P. (2002). UrbanSim: Modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Journal of the ­American Planning Association, 68(3), 297–314. doi:10.1080/01944360208976274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellman, B., & Haase, A. (2001). Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455. doi:10.1177/1461444806061953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J. I., Palen, L., & Anderson, K. M. (2012). Digital mobilization in disaster response: The work and self-organization of online pet advocates in response to Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 866–876). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, W., & Parolin, B. (2012). Review of web-based ­communications for town planning in local government. Journal of Urban Technology, 10(1), 43–63. doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.626702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, W., & Parolin, B. (2013). Web 2.0 and social media growth in planning practice: A longitudinal study. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5), 544–562. doi:10.1080/02697459.2013.840996
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869. doi:10.1177/1461444807081230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yli-pelkonen, V., & Kohl, J. (2005). The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: Perspectives from Finland. Sustainability, Science, & Policy, 1(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/15487733.2005.11907960
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, L., & Wang, T. (2014). Social media: A new vehicle for city marketing in China. Cities, 37, 27–32. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zittrain, J. (2006). The generative internet. Harvard Law Review, 119(7), 1974–2040. doi:10.1145/1435417.1435426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar