IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjouxx/v10y2017i3p296-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can web-based community engagement inform equitable planning outcomes? A case study of bikesharing

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Piatkowski
  • Wesley Marshall
  • Nader Afzalan

Abstract

Web-based engagement is increasingly popular because of its perceived ability to increase access to the planning process with less effort than traditional methods. Currently, the utility of these approaches for meeting the needs of all members of a community is unclear. This research tests whether web-based engagement can forward equitable planning outcomes by examining proposed bikeshare station locations collected via a web-application; operationalizing equity as equal access to bikeshare station locations across all populations. Results indicate that solely relying upon online outreach would lead to an inequitable distribution of station locations. Suggested station locations are negatively-correlated with increased minority populations and positively-correlated with an increased mix of employment and housing. As such, we determine that while online outreach is a convenient and efficient means of collecting vast amounts of information, on its own it is not well-suited to planning applications in which access-equity is a primary concern.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Piatkowski & Wesley Marshall & Nader Afzalan, 2017. "Can web-based community engagement inform equitable planning outcomes? A case study of bikesharing," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 296-309, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjouxx:v:10:y:2017:i:3:p:296-309
    DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2016.1254672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17549175.2016.1254672
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17549175.2016.1254672?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rjouxx:v:10:y:2017:i:3:p:296-309. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjou20 .

    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.