IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v5y2020i2p84-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Urban Planning: What Would Make Planners Trust the Citizens?

Author

Listed:
  • Joachim Åström

    (School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden)

Abstract

Based on the critical stance of citizens towards urban planning, growing attention has been directed towards new forms of citizen participation. A key expectation is that advanced digital technologies will reconnect citizens and decision makers and enhance trust in planning. However, empirical evidence suggests participation by itself does not foster trust, and many scholars refer to a general weakness of these initiatives to deliver the expected outcomes. Considering that trust is reciprocal, this article will switch focus and concentrate on planners’ attitudes towards citizens. Do urban planners generally think that citizens are trustworthy? Even though studies show that public officials are more trusting than people in general, it is possible that they do not trust citizens when interacting with government. However, empirical evidence is scarce. While there is plenty of research on citizens’ trust in government, public officials trust in citizens has received little scholarly attention. To address this gap, we will draw on a survey targeted to a representative sample of public managers in Swedish local government (N = 1430). First, urban planners will be compared with other public officials when it comes to their level of trust toward citizens’ ability, integrity and benevolence. In order to understand variations in trust, a set of institutional factors will thereafter be tested, along with more commonly used individual factors. In light of the empirical findings, the final section of the article returns to the idea of e-participation as a trust-building strategy. What would make planners trust the citizens in participatory urban planning?

Suggested Citation

  • Joachim Åström, 2020. "Participatory Urban Planning: What Would Make Planners Trust the Citizens?," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 84-93.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:5:y:2020:i:2:p:84-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/3021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joachim Åström & Mikael Granberg & Abdul Khakee, 2011. "Apple Pie–Spinach Metaphor: Shall e-Democracy make Participatory Planning More Wholesome?," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(5), pages 571-586.
    2. Sook Jong Lee & Hi Jeong Yu, 2013. "Factors Affecting Public Servants’ Trust in Citizens: A Case Study of South Korean Central Government Officials," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 85-114, December.
    3. Sonia Royo & Vicente Pina & Jaime Garcia-Rayado, 2020. "Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Eran Vigoda-Gadot & Yair Zalmanovitch & Alex Belonogov, 2012. "Public Servants’ Trust in Citizens: An Extension of Theory and an Empirical Examination with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 383-399, December.
    5. David Le Blanc, 2020. "E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends," Working Papers 163, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    6. Yuguo Liao & Hindy L. Schachter, 2018. "Exploring the antecedents of municipal managers’ attitudes towards citizen participation," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1287-1308, September.
    7. Taylor Shelton & Thomas Lodato, 2019. "Actually existing smart citizens," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 35-52, January.
    8. Reinhard Bachmann, 2011. "At the crossroads: Future directions in trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 203-213, June.
    9. Paolo Cardullo & Rob Kitchin, 2019. "Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(5), pages 813-830, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammad Soltani Delgosha & Tahereh Saheb & Nastaran Hajiheydari, 0. "Modelling the Asymmetrical Relationships between Digitalisation and Sustainable Competitiveness: A Cross-Country Configurational Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.
    2. Immacolata Di Napoli & Pasquale Dolce & Caterina Arcidiacono, 2019. "Community Trust: A Social Indicator Related to Community Engagement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 551-579, September.
    3. James K. C. Chen & Thitima Sriphon, 2022. "Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Social Exchange Relationships under the Influence of Leader Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-32, May.
    4. Xiaomeng Lucock & Victoria Westbrooke, 2021. "Trusting in the “Eye in the Sky”? Farmers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of Drone Use in Environmental Auditing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    5. Carmen C. Rodríguez-Martínez & Mitzi Cubilla-Montilla & Purificación Vicente-Galindo & Purificación Galindo-Villardón, 2023. "X-STATIS: A Multivariate Approach to Characterize the Evolution of E-Participation, from a Global Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Jacco L. Wielhouwer, 2015. "The public cost of broken trust: Spillover effects of financial reporting irregularities," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 132-152, October.
    7. Victoria Westbrooke & Xiaomeng Lucock & Isobel Greenhalgh, 2023. "Drone Use in On-Farm Environmental Compliance: An Investigation of Regulators’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Bipashyee Ghosh & Saurabh Arora, 2022. "Smart as (un)democratic? The making of a smart city imaginary in Kolkata, India," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 318-339, February.
    9. Gusti Ayu Made Suartika & Alexander Cuthbert, 2020. "The Sustainable Imperative—Smart Cities, Technology and Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Solis, Miriam & Bashar, Samira Binte, 2022. "Social equity implications of advanced water metering infrastructure," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Dietmar Offenhuber, 2019. "The platform and the bricoleur—Improvisation and smart city initiatives in Indonesia," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(8), pages 1565-1580, October.
    12. Ozge CELIK YILMAZ & Ozhan ERTEKIN, 2023. "Urban Living Labs As A Tool To Achieve Sustainable Development Goal 16: A Case Study Of Istanbul, Turkiye," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 18(3), pages 88-118, August.
    13. Monika Wawer & Kalina Grzesiuk & Dorota Jegorow, 2022. "Smart Mobility in a Smart City in the Context of Generation Z Sustainability, Use of ICT, and Participation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-30, June.
    14. Cristina Viano & Sowelu Avanzo & Monica Cerutti & Alex Cordero & Claudio Schifanella & Guido Boella, 2022. "Blockchain tools for socio-economic interactions in local communities [Blockchain-based smart contracts: A systematic mapping study]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(3), pages 373-385.
    15. Mikael Granberg & Lars Nyberg & Lars-Erik Modh, 2016. "Understanding the local policy context of risk management: Competitiveness and adaptation to climate risks in the city of Karlstad, Sweden," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 26-46, February.
    16. Nimesha Sahani Jayasena & Daniel W. M. Chan & Mohan M. Kumaraswamy, 2022. "Is Public–Private Partnership (PPP) a Preferred Strategy for Procuring Smart Infrastructure in Developed Countries: An Empirical Study of the Perceived Benefits, Barriers and Recommended Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-25, May.
    17. Zhang, Yi & Kimathi, Flora A., 2022. "Exploring the stages of E-government development from public value perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Anassaya Chawviang & Supaporn Kiattisin, 2022. "Sustainable Development: Smart Co-Operative Management Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-25, March.
    19. Paolo Cardullo & Rob Kitchin, 2019. "Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(5), pages 813-830, August.
    20. Sergiu Gherghina & Paul Tap, 2021. "Ecology Projects and Participatory Budgeting: Enhancing Citizens’ Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:5:y:2020:i:2:p:84-93. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.