IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v6y2018i3p159-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scrutinizing Virtual Citizen Involvement in Planning: Ten Applications of an Online Participatory Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Mattias Hjerpe

    (Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Thematic Studies―Environmental Change, Linköping University, Sweden)

  • Erik Glaas

    (Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Thematic Studies―Environmental Change, Linköping University, Sweden)

  • Sofie Storbjörk

    (Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Thematic Studies―Environmental Change, Linköping University, Sweden)

Abstract

How to organize citizen participation in planning is continuously debated. The amount of Online Participatory Tools (OPTs) to facilitate inclusive and efficient participation has increased. While studies have assessed their functionality, usability and effectiveness in planning, they have rarely analyzed OPTs beyond single-cases, targeted tools that are widely used or assessed how OPTs affect broader values of participation. Targeting this absence, this study analyzes how ten applications of a widely used OPT, CityPlanner™, affect the normative, substantive and instrumental values of citizen participatory planning in Swedish cities. By analyzing 1,354 citizen proposals and interviewing urban planners, we find that citizens more extensively submit proposals and initiate debates on planning when using the OPT. Results suggest a more even age and gender distribution among proposal users than with conventional methods, facilitating normative values of participation. The OPT was generally applied early in planning and generated high-quality inputs. Our results, however, nuance previous analyses by also emphasizing the importance of place-specificity of OPT applications and of joint participation strategies among departments. Key for OPT development includes the need to improve their ability to analyze overarching trends among inputs.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattias Hjerpe & Erik Glaas & Sofie Storbjörk, 2018. "Scrutinizing Virtual Citizen Involvement in Planning: Ten Applications of an Online Participatory Tool," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 159-169.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:159-169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1481
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maarit Kahila-Tani & Anna Broberg & Marketta Kyttä & Taylor Tyger, 2016. "Let the Citizens Map—Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 195-214, March.
    2. Elisabeth Conrad & Louis F Cassar & Mike Christie & Ioan Fazey, 2011. "Hearing but Not Listening? A Participatory Assessment of Public Participation in Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(5), pages 761-782, October.
    3. Reinout Kleinhans & Maarten Van Ham & Jennifer Evans-Cowley, 2015. "Using Social Media and Mobile Technologies to Foster Engagement and Self-Organization in Participatory Urban Planning and Neighbourhood Governance," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 237-247, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daphna Levine & Shai Sussman & Meirav Aharon-Gutman, 2022. "Spatial-temporal patterns of self-organization: A dynamic 4D model for redeveloping the post-zoning city," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 1005-1023, March.
    2. James Charlton & Ian Babelon & Richard Watson & Caitlin Hafferty, 2023. "Phygitally Smarter? A Critically Pragmatic Agenda for Smarter Engagement in British Planning and Beyond," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 17-31.

    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. Erik Glaas & Mattias Hjerpe & Martin Karlson & Tina-Simone Neset, 2020. "Visualization for Citizen Participation: User Perceptions on a Mainstreamed Online Participatory Tool and Its Usefulness for Climate Change Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Katherine E. Laycock & Wayne Caldwell, 2018. "Exploring Community Cohesion in Rural Canada Post-Extreme Weather: Planning Ahead for Unknown Stresses," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 77-97, August.
    3. Soud K. Al-Thani & Cynthia P. Skelhorn & Alexandre Amato & Muammer Koc & Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, 2018. "Smart Technology Impact on Neighborhood Form for a Sustainable Doha," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Knöll, Martin, 2018. "Mobile Partizipation in der gesundheitsfördernden Stadtgestaltung: Zwei Fallbeispiele zu Datenerfassung und Interaktion im Stadtraum," Forschungsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Baumgart, Sabine & Köckler, Heike & Ritzinger, Anne & Rüdiger, Andrea (ed.), Planung für gesundheitsfördernde Städte, volume 8, pages 387-401, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    5. Jee Hoon Lee & Jacob Wood & Jungsuk Kim, 2021. "Tracing the Trends in Sustainability and Social Media Research Using Topic Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Enzo Falco & Reinout Kleinhans, 2018. "Digital Participatory Platforms for Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 7(3), pages 52-79, July.
    7. Jisoo Sim & Patrick Miller & Samarth Swarup, 2020. "Tweeting the High Line Life: A Social Media Lens on Urban Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Xiaoxu Liang & Yanjun Lu & John Martin, 2021. "A Review of the Role of Social Media for the Cultural Heritage Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Genus, Audley & Stirling, Andy, 2018. "Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-69.
    10. Pilvi Nummi, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Local Knowledge with PPGIS and Social Media for Urban Planning to Reveal Intangible Cultural Heritage," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 100-115.
    11. Willemien Laenens & Wendy Van den Broeck & Ilse Mariën, 2018. "Channel Choice Determinants of (Digital) Government Communication: A Case Study of Spatial Planning in Flanders," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 140-152.
    12. Andrew Osehi Enaifoghe & Cotties Toyin Adetiba, 2019. "Understanding Dynamic Engagement of Community in Local Governance, Enhancing Grassroots Development in South Africa," Journal of Social and Development Sciences, AMH International, vol. 10(1), pages 22-32.
    13. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    14. Yanliu Lin & Stijn Kant, 2021. "Using Social Media for Citizen Participation: Contexts, Empowerment, and Inclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    15. Maja Steen Møller & Anton Stahl Olafsson, 2018. "The Use of E-Tools to Engage Citizens in Urban Green Infrastructure Governance: Where Do We Stand and Where Are We Going?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-10, September.
    16. Lin, Yanliu, 2018. "A comparison of selected Western and Chinese smart governance: The application of ICT in governmental management, participation and collaboration," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 800-809.

    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:poango:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:159-169. 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.