IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i1p90-d483222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?

Author

Listed:
  • Miroslav Kopáček

    (Department of Human Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 710 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Civic participation has an irreplaceable role in the land-use planning process because it contributes a practical perspective to expert knowledge. This article discusses whether there is actually a level of civic participation that can be considered optimal, which would allow experts to effectively obtain information from everyday users of the territory, who have the best practical knowledge of it; experts may also gain sufficient feedback on intended developments, based on knowledge about civic participation from representatives of individual municipalities. The article also proposes measures that can promote an optimal degree of participation in the land-use planning process. The fieldwork was conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews with the mayors of municipalities with a population of up to 2000 inhabitants in selected districts of the Ústí Region (Czech Republic). The results suggest that the optimal degree of civic participation in land-use planning should have a representative extent, so it should not merely be a matter of individuals, but also one of groups of dozens of people, and such groups should encompass a balanced variety of characteristics; an optimal level of civic participation should also provide the maximum number of relevant impulses. Measures that may secure and foster an optimal degree of civic participation in land-use planning include (1) striving to avoid preferring purely voluntary participation; (2) simultaneously utilizing various tools to engage inhabitants; (3) educating inhabitants on a regular basis; and (4) consistently communicating and providing feedback, while also searching for informal means of communication and discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Miroslav Kopáček, 2021. "Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:1:p:90-:d:483222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/90/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/90/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beatriz Santos, 2017. "Improving Urban Planning Information, Transparency and Participation in Public Administrations," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 6(4), pages 58-75, October.
    2. Anna M. Hersperger & Maria-Pia Gennaio Franscini & Daniel Kübler, 2014. "Actors, Decisions and Policy Changes in Local Urbanization," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(6), pages 1301-1319, June.
    3. Gregory Brown & Maggi Kelly & Debra Whitall, 2014. "Which 'public'? Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for public lands management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 190-214, February.
    4. Wolf, Isabelle D. & Wohlfart, Teresa & Brown, Greg & Bartolomé Lasa, Abraham, 2015. "The use of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for park visitor management: A case study of mountain biking," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 112-130.
    5. Amirulikhsan Zolkafli & Greg Brown & Yan Liu, 2017. "An Evaluation of the Capacity-building Effects of Participatory GIS (PGIS) for Public Participation in Land Use Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 385-401, August.
    6. Malgorzata Blicharska & Per Angelstam & Hans Antonson & Marine Elbakidze & Robert Axelsson, 2011. "Road, forestry and regional planners' work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: a case study in Poland's hotspot regions," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(10), pages 1373-1395.
    7. Łukasz Damurski & Marcin Oleksy, 2018. "Communicative and participatory paradigm in the European territorial policies. A discourse analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(7), pages 1471-1492, July.
    8. Nina Palmy David & Adria Buchanan, 2020. "Planning Our Future: Institutionalizing Youth Participation in Local Government Planning Efforts," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 9-38, January.
    9. Torill Nyseth & Torill Ringholm & Annika Agger, 2019. "Innovative Forms of Citizen Participation at the Fringe of the Formal Planning System," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 7-18.
    10. Gaventa, John & Barrett, Gregory, 2012. "Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(12), pages 2399-2410.
    11. Thomas, Emma & Riley, Mark & Spees, Jack, 2020. "Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming’," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    12. Jost Wilker & Karsten Rusche & Christine Rymsa-Fitschen, 2016. "Improving Participation in Green Infrastructure Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 229-249, May.
    13. A. Rashidfarokhi & L. Yrjänä & M. Wallenius & S. Toivonen & A. Ekroos & K. Viitanen, 2018. "Social sustainability tool for assessing land use planning processes," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1269-1296, June.
    14. Nader Afzalan & Brian Muller, 2018. "Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 84(2), pages 162-177, April.
    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. Daniel Kpienbaareh & Rachel Bezner Kerr & Isaac Luginaah & Jinfei Wang & Esther Lupafya & Laifolo Dakishoni & Lizzie Shumba, 2020. "Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Artur José Sitoe & Seunghoo Lim, 2024. "Understanding citizens' perception of channels for participating in administration based on their motivation in an authoritarian regime: The case of Gaza Province, Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 606-625, January.
    3. Claire Daniel & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1875-1892, September.
    4. Baxter, Jamie Scott & Chatzichristos, Georgios & Christmann, Gabriela & Hennebry, Barraí & Kovanen, Sunna & Novikova, Marina & Olmedo, Lucas & Stoustrup, Sune W. & van Twuijver, Mara & Umantseva, Anna, 2020. "Social Enterprises in Structurally Weak Rural Regions: Innovative Troubleshooters in Action. Handbook for Practitioners," IRS Dialog 6/2020, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    5. Sari Suomalainen & Outi Tahvonen & Helena Kahiluoto, 2022. "From Participation to Involvement in Urban Open Space Management and Maintenance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Torill Nyseth & Abdelillah Hamdouch, 2019. "The Transformative Power of Social Innovation in Urban Planning and Local Development," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6.
    7. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2019. "The Geography and Equity of Crowdsourced Public Participation for Active Transportation Planning," SocArXiv 9ghrn, Center for Open Science.
    8. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    9. Alattar, Mohammad Anwar & Cottrill, Caitlin & Beecroft, Mark, 2021. "Public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) as a method for active travel data acquisition," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Van Herzele, Ann, 2015. "What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    11. Mihai-Razvan Niță & Ana-Maria Anghel & Cristina Bănescu & Ana-Maria Munteanu & Sabina-Stella Pesamosca & Mihuț Zețu & Ana-Maria Popa, 2018. "Are Romanian urban strategies planning for green?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 158-173, January.
    12. Ardanaz, Martin & Otálvaro-Ramírez, Susana & Scartascini, Carlos, 2023. "Does information about citizen participation initiatives increase political trust?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    13. de Renzio, Paolo & Wehner, Joachim, 2017. "The impacts of fiscal openness," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 82521, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Sonja Kivinen & Kaarina Vartiainen & Timo Kumpula, 2018. "People and Post-Mining Environments: PPGIS Mapping of Landscape Values, Knowledge Needs, and Future Perspectives in Northern Finland," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    16. 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.
    17. Workineh, Nigatu Amsalu, 2021. "Rezoning prior urban planning period for urban space development in Injibara Town, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Simon O'Meally, 2014. "The Contradictions of Pro-poor Participation and Empowerment: The World Bank in East Africa," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(6), pages 1248-1283, November.
    19. Angioletta Voghera & Benedetta Giudice, 2019. "Evaluating and Planning Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Perspective for Sustainability and Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, May.
    20. Elena Ionașcu & Marilena Mironiuc & Ion Anghel & Maria Carmen Huian, 2020. "The Involvement of Real Estate Companies in Sustainable Development—An Analysis from the SDGs Reporting Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:1:p:90-:d:483222. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.