IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v127y2023ics0264837722005555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilization and implementation of PPGIS in land use planning and decision-making from the perspective of organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Kantola, Sini
  • Fagerholm, Nora
  • Nikula, Ari

Abstract

Public participation GIS (PPGIS) approaches, often online participatory mapping, are used as participatory tools in land use planning. Applying PPGIS is expected to create data that contribute to decision-making processes in different organizations. The challenge with the use of PPGIS is that information often remains at the level of data collection without deeper and concrete use of the data. However, further research is required to better assess the impact of PPGIS approaches in actual land use-related decision-making. The essential questions are how PPGIS data have been used in decision-making, and how the application of the PPGIS approach is beneficial for land use planning processes. We aim to address these questions through three cases in Finnish Lapland, a sparsely populated region with mainly publicly owned land. The analysis is performed from the perspective of the organizations that applied PPGIS surveys. The results show that PPGIS can improve interaction between organizations and respondents in land use planning. PPGIS is particularly beneficial in the early phases of a land use planning process. In addition, for the most beneficial impact we advise using PPGIS to manage practical land use planning-related issues and to store collected data systematically.

Suggested Citation

  • Kantola, Sini & Fagerholm, Nora & Nikula, Ari, 2023. "Utilization and implementation of PPGIS in land use planning and decision-making from the perspective of organizations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:127:y:2023:i:c:s0264837722005555
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722005555
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106528?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn Harrison & Mordechai Haklay, 2002. "The Potential of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems in UK Environmental Planning: Appraisals by Active Publics," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(6), pages 841-863.
    2. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    3. Karimi, Azadeh & Adams, Vanessa M., 2019. "Planning for the future: Combining spatially-explicit public preferences with tenure policies to support land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 497-508.
    4. Greg Brown & Sean Yeong Wei Chin, 2013. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Neighbourhood Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 563-588, October.
    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. Beni Rohrbach & Sharolyn Anderson & Patrick Laube, 2016. "The effects of sample size on data quality in participatory mapping of past land use," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(4), pages 681-697, July.
    2. Bach Quang Ho & Yuki Inoue, 2020. "Driving Network Externalities in Education for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Kimberly Jones, 2023. "Community Engagement in Local Communities: Hearing the Voices of the Public," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 16(32), October.
    4. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    5. Vandermeulen, V. & Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2008. "Designing trans-disciplinary research to support policy formulation for sustainable agricultural development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 352-361, October.
    6. Natalie A Jones & Pascal Perez & Thomas G Measham & Gail J Kelly & Patrick D’Aquino & Katherine Daniell & Anne Dray & Nils Ferrand, 2008. "Evaluating Participatory Modeling: Developing a Framework for Cross-case Analysis," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    7. Ruggia, A. & Dogliotti, S. & Aguerre, V. & Albicette, M.M. & Albin, A. & Blumetto, O. & Cardozo, G. & Leoni, C. & Quintans, G. & Scarlato, S. & Tittonell, P. & Rossing, W.A.H., 2021. "The application of ecologically intensive principles to the systemic redesign of livestock farms on native grasslands: A case of co-innovation in Rocha, Uruguay," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Elena Bakhanova & Jaime A. Garcia & William L. Raffe & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1167-1182, October.
    9. Springett, Jane & Wright, Michael T. & Roche, Brenda, 2011. "Developing quality criteria for Participatory Health Research: An agenda for action," Discussion Papers, Research Group Public Health SP I 2011-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    10. Saige Wang & Chenchen Zhai & Yunxiao Zhang, 2024. "Evaluating the Impact of Urban Digital Infrastructure on Land Use Efficiency Based on 279 Cities in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, March.
    11. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Sergey Revyakin, 2018. "On the Effectiveness of Electronic Platforms of Citizen Participation in Public Administration," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 2, pages 94-113.
    13. Jin Guo & Junhong Bai, 2019. "The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    14. Anatoliy, Kucher & Iryna, Kazakova & Lesya, Kucher & Antonia, Schraml & Hekuran, Koka & Warren, Priest5, 2015. "Sustainable use of land in danger of wind erosion in Ukraine: stakeholder engagement," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 1(2), December.
    15. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Pahlavani, Parham & Sheikhian, Hossein & Bigdeli, Behnaz, 2020. "Evaluation of residential land use compatibilities using a density-based IOWA operator and an ANFIS-based model: A case study of Tehran, Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Diana Tuomasjukka & Marcus Lindner & David Edwards, 2013. "A Concept for Testing Decision Support Tools in Participatory Processes Applied to the ToSIA Tool," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-22, April.
    18. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    19. Viola Hakkarainen & Katri Mäkinen‐Rostedt & Andra Horcea‐Milcu & Dalia D'Amato & Johanna Jämsä & Katriina Soini, 2022. "Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 309-325, April.
    20. Tamara Avellán & Angela Hahn & Sabrina Kirschke & Andrea Müller & Lucia Benavides & Serena Caucci, 2022. "Co-Generating Knowledge in Nexus Research for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:127:y:2023:i:c:s0264837722005555. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.