IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjpaxx/v84y2018i2p162-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Nader Afzalan
  • Brian Muller

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and ­findings: Planning organizations are increasingly using online technologies for public engagement, but there is dispute about their value in enriching public engagement. We explore an interdisciplinary literature on the capability of online participatory tools (OPTs) to respond to the goals of participatory planning. Proponents argue that OPTs can help attract more citizens, engage a more diverse population, disseminate information more broadly, gather local knowledge, and facilitate consensus building. Skeptics argue that OPTs can intensify social injustice and an unequal distribution of power as well as create or exacerbate privacy, security, and data management issues. We critically examine the pros and cons of OPTs, assess their potential role in facilitating public engagement, and provide guidelines for their implementation. These results are time sensitive because of the rapidly changing environment of digital technologies.Takeaway for practice: There are still many unresolved questions about the benefits of OPTs. Research suggests that they can at times be effective in addressing goals of public participation, such as inclusive planning, consensus building, learning from local knowledge, and mobilizing social action. Their effectiveness depends significantly on implementation, however. Integrating online participation strategies with the overall participation process and other digital infrastructures within the organization may foster their effectiveness. Planners collaborating with formal or informal learning networks or related professionals can facilitate the effective use of OPTs within their own organizations. Additional information is needed on which OPTs are most appropriate in which planning environments, how well OPTs meet a range of major participatory objectives, how to make trade-offs between OPTs and face-to-face methods, and the best managerial structures for ensuring their effective use.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:84:y:2018:i:2:p:162-177
    DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2018.1434010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2018.1434010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01944363.2018.1434010?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Katherine Iles & Sya Buryn Kedzior, 2023. "Operationalizing participation: experiences and perspectives of participatory GIS program coordinators," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 539-565, October.
    2. Andrea Ballatore & Teun Johannes Verhagen & Zhije Li & Stefano Cucurachi, 2022. "This city is not a bin: Crowdmapping the distribution of urban litter," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 197-212, February.
    3. Jordi Honey-Rosés & Mitzy Canessa & Sarah Daitch & Bruno Gomes & Javier Muñoz-Blanco García & André Xavier & Oscar Zapata, 2020. "Comparing Structured and Unstructured Facilitation Approaches in Consultation Workshops: A Field Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 949-967, October.
    4. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2019. "The Geography and Equity of Crowdsourced Public Participation for Active Transportation Planning," SocArXiv 9ghrn, Center for Open Science.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Nathan Fox & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & Mark Lindquist & Derek Van Berkel & Ramiro Serrano-Vergel, 2022. "Gamifying Decision Support Systems to Promote Inclusive and Engaged Urban Resilience Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 239-252.
    8. Dragana S. Nikolić & Marijana D. Pantić & Vesna T. Jokić, 2021. "Urban and Spatial Planning: Pragmatic Considerations for Plan Implementation Improvements (A Case Study of the City of Bor)," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440219, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Bike Share Station Locations: Evaluating participation and placement," SocArXiv mtnza, Center for Open Science.
    11. David Horan, 2019. "A New Approach to Partnerships for SDG Transformations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-22, September.
    12. 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).

    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:rjpaxx:v:84:y:2018:i:2:p:162-177. 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/rjpa20 .

    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.