IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i2p705-d310302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visualization for Citizen Participation: User Perceptions on a Mainstreamed Online Participatory Tool and Its Usefulness for Climate Change Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Glaas

    (Department of Thematic Studies—Environmental Change, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Mattias Hjerpe

    (Department of Thematic Studies—Environmental Change, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Martin Karlson

    (Department of Thematic Studies—Environmental Change, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Tina-Simone Neset

    (Department of Thematic Studies—Environmental Change, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

Abstract

Citizen participation is obligated in municipal planning but is often criticized because of its inadequate implementation. To increase the usefulness of citizen participation and the involvement of underrepresented groups, online participatory tools (OPTs) have attracted attention, in particular, on topics related to climate change. Although many OPTs have been developed and are becoming more widely used, assessments of their usefulness in real-world planning remain scarce. This study aimed to disentangle prospects and pitfalls of this still novel way of practicing citizen dialogue. Specifically, we apply criteria derived from related literatures to assess a mainstreamed OPT in Norrköping, Sweden. The CityPlanner™ tool was discussed with citizens and planners using focus group methodology and semi-structured individual interviews. Moreover, citizen contributions in four applications of the OPT were analyzed. The results reveal that the biggest challenges for citizen dialogues on planning in general and on climate change, in particular, appear not mainly rooted in the technical functions of the OPT. Rather, problems lie in (i) the lack of municipal strategy for citizen participation and in applying OPTs, (ii) a disparagement in citizens’ abilities to contribute to forming robust and sustainable cities, and (iii) in diverging views about the role of citizen contributions. This is reflected in how the OPT is used. While the examined OPT shows potential, the results indicate that visualized contexts for planning might be too scant to be entirely meaningful, and it lacks mechanisms for feedback. Not using the full potential of the OPT makes citizens less engaged and risks to adversely affect learning and citizens’ contributions to solving complex issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Glaas & Mattias Hjerpe & Martin Karlson & Tina-Simone Neset, 2020. "Visualization for Citizen Participation: User Perceptions on a Mainstreamed Online Participatory Tool and Its Usefulness for Climate Change Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:2:p:705-:d:310302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/705/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/705/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elisabeth Conrad & Louis F Cassar & Mike Christie & Ioan Fazey, 2011. "Hearing but Not Listening? A Participatory Assessment of Public Participation in Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(5), pages 761-782, October.
    2. Maarit Kahila-Tani & Anna Broberg & Marketta Kyttä & Taylor Tyger, 2016. "Let the Citizens Map—Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 195-214, March.
    3. Ian Babelon & Alexander Ståhle & Berit Balfors, 2017. "Toward Cyborg PPGIS: exploring socio-technical requirements for the use of web-based PPGIS in two municipal planning cases, Stockholm region, Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1366-1390, August.
    4. John R Parkins & A John Sinclair, 2014. "Patterns of Elitism within Participatory Environmental Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(4), pages 746-761, August.
    5. Reinout Kleinhans & Maarten Van Ham & Jennifer Evans-Cowley, 2015. "Using Social Media and Mobile Technologies to Foster Engagement and Self-Organization in Participatory Urban Planning and Neighbourhood Governance," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 237-247, June.
    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. Marimuthu, Malliga & D'Souza, Clare & Shukla, Yupal, 2022. "Integrating community value into the adoption framework: A systematic review of conceptual research on participatory smart city applications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    2. Daphna Levine & Shai Sussman & Meirav Aharon-Gutman, 2022. "Spatial-temporal patterns of self-organization: A dynamic 4D model for redeveloping the post-zoning city," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 1005-1023, March.
    3. Oana Luca & Florian Gaman & Emanuel Răuță, 2021. "Towards a National Harmonized Framework for Urban Plans and Strategies in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Abel, Dennis & Lieth, Jonas & Jünger, Stefan, 2024. "Mapping the spatial turn in social science energy research. A computational literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    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. Mattias Hjerpe & Erik Glaas & Sofie Storbjörk, 2018. "Scrutinizing Virtual Citizen Involvement in Planning: Ten Applications of an Online Participatory Tool," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 159-169.
    2. Pilvi Nummi, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Local Knowledge with PPGIS and Social Media for Urban Planning to Reveal Intangible Cultural Heritage," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 100-115.
    3. Healy, Hali, 2023. "Pulp and participation: Assessing the legitimacy of participatory environmental governance in Umkomaas, South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Van Assche, Kristof & Gruezmacher, Monica & Summers, Bob & Culling, Joshua & Gajjar, Shaival & Granzow, Michael & Lowerre, Andrew & Deacon, Leith & Candlish, Jared & Jamwal, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Land use policy and community strategy. Factors enabling and hampering integrated local strategy in Alberta, Canada," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Kotzebue, Julia R., 2022. "Integrated urban transport infrastructure development: The role of digital social geo-communication in Hamburg's TEN-T improvement," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Katja Mäkinen, 2021. "Scales of participation and multi-scalar citizenship in EU participatory governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(5), pages 1011-1029, August.
    7. Willemien Laenens & Wendy Van den Broeck & Ilse Mariën, 2018. "Channel Choice Determinants of (Digital) Government Communication: A Case Study of Spatial Planning in Flanders," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 140-152.
    8. Andrew Osehi Enaifoghe & Cotties Toyin Adetiba, 2019. "Understanding Dynamic Engagement of Community in Local Governance, Enhancing Grassroots Development in South Africa," Journal of Social and Development Sciences, AMH International, vol. 10(1), pages 22-32.
    9. Katherine E. Laycock & Wayne Caldwell, 2018. "Exploring Community Cohesion in Rural Canada Post-Extreme Weather: Planning Ahead for Unknown Stresses," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 77-97, August.
    10. Soud K. Al-Thani & Cynthia P. Skelhorn & Alexandre Amato & Muammer Koc & Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, 2018. "Smart Technology Impact on Neighborhood Form for a Sustainable Doha," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Alex Osei-Kojo & Nathan Andrews, 2016. "Questioning the Status Quo: Can Stakeholder Participation Improve Implementation of Small-Scale Mining Laws in Ghana?," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Knöll, Martin, 2018. "Mobile Partizipation in der gesundheitsfördernden Stadtgestaltung: Zwei Fallbeispiele zu Datenerfassung und Interaktion im Stadtraum," Forschungsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Baumgart, Sabine & Köckler, Heike & Ritzinger, Anne & Rüdiger, Andrea (ed.), Planung für gesundheitsfördernde Städte, volume 8, pages 387-401, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    13. Ernst, Anna & Shamon, Hawal, 2020. "Public participation in the German energy transformation: Examining empirically relevant factors of participation decisions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Jessica Page & Ulla Mörtberg & Georgia Destouni & Carla Ferreira & Helena Näsström & Zahra Kalantari, 2020. "Open-source planning support system for sustainable regional planning: A case study of Stockholm County, Sweden," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1508-1523, October.
    15. Jee Hoon Lee & Jacob Wood & Jungsuk Kim, 2021. "Tracing the Trends in Sustainability and Social Media Research Using Topic Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Enzo Falco & Reinout Kleinhans, 2018. "Digital Participatory Platforms for Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 7(3), pages 52-79, July.
    17. Jisoo Sim & Patrick Miller & Samarth Swarup, 2020. "Tweeting the High Line Life: A Social Media Lens on Urban Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    18. Xiaoxu Liang & Yanjun Lu & John Martin, 2021. "A Review of the Role of Social Media for the Cultural Heritage Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    20. Yanliu Lin & Stijn Kant, 2021. "Using Social Media for Citizen Participation: Contexts, Empowerment, and Inclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:2:p:705-:d:310302. 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.