IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i10p1941-d1262652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Jongwng Ju

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea)

  • Jaecheol Kim

    (Department of Urban Planning, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

In the planning process, it is crucial to involve every key stakeholder for effective collaborative participation. However, in real-world practice, planners often face difficulties engaging stakeholders who remain passive. The authors argue that the Delphi method, when modified to enhance planners’ roles as a communication channel, can bridge this gap, serving as a tool to facilitate communication with these passive stakeholders and fostering consensus between those who actively voice their opinions and those who do not. Therefore, this study introduces a ‘planner-aided’ policy Delphi method, which is a revised version of existing Delphi methods tailored to better serve these goals. The authors then explore the effectiveness of this proposed method in engaging voiceless stakeholders in the participatory planning process through a case study of the Seohak-dong Art Theme Street design project in Jeonju, South Korea. This study finds that the PAP Delphi technique integrated into participatory planning effectively reflected the thoughts of voiceless stakeholders. This research contributes by proposing a practical and easy-to-use method for urban planners to engage less-vocal groups and demonstrating its effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1941-:d:1262652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1941/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1941/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marijana Pantić & Juaneé Cilliers & Guido Cimadomo & Fernando Montaño & Olusola Olufemi & Sally Torres Mallma & Johan van den Berg, 2021. "Challenges and Opportunities for Public Participation in Urban and Regional Planning during the COVID-19 Pandemic—Lessons Learned for the Future," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    2. de Loë, Rob C. & Melnychuk, Natalya & Murray, Dan & Plummer, Ryan, 2016. "Advancing the State of Policy Delphi Practice: A Systematic Review Evaluating Methodological Evolution, Innovation, and Opportunities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 78-88.
    3. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    4. Jinkun Yang & Linchuan Yang & Haitao Ma, 2022. "Community Participation Strategy for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Xiamen, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, 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. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    2. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    3. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    5. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Davies-Colley, Christian & Smith, Willie, 2012. "Implementing environmental technologies in development situations: The example of ecological toilets," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-8.
    7. Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Moulaert & Jan Schreurs & Konrad Miciukiewicz, 2014. "Integrative Spatial Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and Planning," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 393-411, August.
    8. Füg, Franz & Ibert, Oliver, 2020. "Assembling social innovations in emergent professional communities. The case of learning region policies in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 541-562.
    9. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    10. Peter Munthe-Kaas, 2015. "Agonism and co-design of urban spaces," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 218-237, July.
    11. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Corianne Payton Scally & J. Rosie Tighe, 2015. "Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 749-769, July.
    13. Derk Jan Stobbelaar, 2020. "Impact of Student Interventions on Urban Greening Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    14. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    15. Akartuna, Eray Arda & Johnson, Shane D. & Thornton, Amy, 2022. "Preventing the money laundering and terrorist financing risks of emerging technologies: An international policy Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    16. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    17. Einsiedel, Edna F. & Boyd, Amanda D. & Medlock, Jennifer & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 149-158.
    18. repec:lib:000cis:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:26-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Maie Kiisel, 2013. "Local Community Participation in the Planning Process: A Case of Bounded Communicative Rationality," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 232-250, February.
    20. Deborah F. Shmueli, 2017. "Community Plan Making in the Face of Ethnic Conflict in Israel: Lessons for Collaborative Planning Processes," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(2), pages 131-144, April.
    21. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    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:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1941-:d:1262652. 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.