IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v82y2014icp23-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring regional futures: Lessons from Metropolitan Chicago's online MetroQuest

Author

Listed:
  • Haas Lyons, Susanna
  • Walsh, Mike
  • Aleman, Erin
  • Robinson, John

Abstract

Online public deliberation on policy and planning issues has great promise as an engaging, affordable and productive public participation method, but it is not a panacea for democratic deliberation or a substitute for face-to-face public engagement. This paper reports on a mix of deliberation tools used by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) to engage residents in online, face-to-face and in-situ deliberations on the long-term future of the Chicago region. MetroQuest is a digital tool for regional planning that served as the primary engine of CMAP's engagement project, contributing new opportunities for individual learning and preference setting that were aggregated into nuanced collective choices. This mix of deliberation approaches resulted in over 20,000 Chicago-area residents engaged, clear public priorities that were reflected in the approved final plan, and advanced a new form of interactive knowledge building and collective priority setting for the field of democratic deliberation. More research is required to develop effective models of engaging the public in a mix of face-to-face and online deliberation.

Suggested Citation

  • Haas Lyons, Susanna & Walsh, Mike & Aleman, Erin & Robinson, John, 2014. "Exploring regional futures: Lessons from Metropolitan Chicago's online MetroQuest," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 23-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:82:y:2014:i:c:p:23-33
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513001248
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.009?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. Julia Abelson & François-Pierre Gauvin, 2008. "Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2008-01, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    2. John Parkinson, 2003. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 180-196, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. O'Brien, Frances A. & Meadows, Maureen & Griffiths, Sam, 2017. "Serialisation and the use of Twitter: Keeping the conversation alive in public policy scenario projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 26-40.

    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. Michael Haus & David Sweeting, 2006. "Local Democracy and Political Leadership: Drawing a Map," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 267-288, June.
    2. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    3. Siangulube, Freddie S. & Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. & Reed, James & Moombe, Kaala. B. & Sunderland, Terry, 2023. "Multistakeholder platforms for integrated landscape governance: The case of Kalomo District, Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    4. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee & Changho Chung, 2015. "Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 319-338, September.
    6. Farrell, Katharine N., 2014. "Intellectual mercantilism and franchise equity: A critical study of the ecological political economy of international payments for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 137-146.
    7. Piotr Lorens & Agnieszka Zimnicka, 2023. "Planning Around Polarisation: Components of Finding Common Ground Based on Regeneration Projects in London and Gdańsk," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 389-400.
    8. Melika Levelt & Tamara Metze, 2014. "The legitimacy of regional governance networks: Gaining credibility in the shadow of hierarchy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(11), pages 2371-2386, August.
    9. Carolyn Hendriks, 2005. "Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(1), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Mathew Humphrey, 2006. "Democratic Legitimacy, Public Justification and Environmental Direct Action," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 310-327, June.
    11. Hysing, Erik, 2015. "Citizen participation or representative government – Building legitimacy for the Gothenburg congestion tax," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & McHugh, Neil & Donaldson, Cam, 2021. "Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    13. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 362-383, June.
    14. Carolyn Hendriks, 2009. "Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 341-368, November.
    15. Rebecca Sandover & Alice Moseley & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2021. "Contrasting Views of Citizens’ Assemblies: Stakeholder Perceptions of Public Deliberation on Climate Change," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 76-86.
    16. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2014. "A Monetary Measure of Inclusive Goods: The Concept of Deliberative Appraisal in the Context of Urban Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Monika Brusenbauch Meislová, 2023. "In Quest for Discursive Legitimation of Ongoing Policy Processes: Constructing Brexit as a Success Story," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 815-833, May.
    18. Carolyn Hendriks & Lyn Carson, 2008. "Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 293-313, December.
    19. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2015. "Measuring Shared Social Appreciation of Community Goods: An Experiment for the East Elevated Expressway of Rome," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-25, November.
    20. Maija Karjalainen & Lauri Rapeli, 2015. "Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 407-422, 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:eee:tefoso:v:82:y:2014:i:c:p:23-33. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.