IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v38y2011i3p447-467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Keiron Bailey

    (Department of Geography and Regional Development, University of Arizona, Harvill Building Box #2, 1103 East 2nd Street, Tucson AZ 85712, USA)

  • Benjamin Blandford

    (Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, 1457 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506-0027, USA)

  • Ted Grossardt
  • John Ripy

Abstract

The authors have measured an Arnstein gap, that is, a significant difference between desired and actual levels of citizen participation in planning processes. This Arnstein gap exists because even well-intentioned professionals have an unrealistic expectation of achieving consensus across large planning scales. Further, it is often hoped or believed that technologies of representation will somehow accomplish consensus. The authors argue this is not possible without developing a stronger theoretical framework for their deployment in planning in democratic societies. The purpose of this research is to move the public closer to the center of the public infrastructure planning and design process in a productive, efficient, and more satisfactory manner, that is, to close the Arnstein gap. The authors adapt a participatory framework, called structured public involvement (SPI), for integrating visualization and geospatial technologies into large-scale public involvement in planning domains. The authors discuss how SPI using the casewise visual evaluation method is applied in collaboration with planners. A case study is presented of integrated transportation and land-use planning for an Indiana city. The results demonstrate that SPI achieves high levels of stakeholder satisfaction in addition to providing high-quality planning and design guidance for professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Keiron Bailey & Benjamin Blandford & Ted Grossardt & John Ripy, 2011. "Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(3), pages 447-467, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:38:y:2011:i:3:p:447-467
    DOI: 10.1068/b35128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b35128
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b35128?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geraint Ellis, 2004. "Discourses of Objection: Towards an Understanding of Third-Party Rights in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(9), pages 1549-1570, September.
    2. Karel Maier, 2001. "Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 707-719, September.
    3. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, April.
    4. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2001. "Participatory Local Governance and Transport Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(3), pages 431-451, March.
    5. Diane Perrons & Sophia Skyers, 2003. "Empowerment Through Participation? Conceptual Explorations and A Case Study," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 265-285, June.
    6. Jeff Turner & Len Holmes & Frances C. Hodgson, 2000. "Intelligent Urban Development: An Introduction to a Participatory Approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(10), pages 1723-1734, September.
    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. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    2. Moshe Givoni & Eda Beyazit & Yoram Shiftan, 2016. "The use of state-of-the-art transport models by policymakers – beauty in simplicity?," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 385-404, July.

    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. Maria Morfoulaki & Glykeria Myrovali & Maria Chatziathanasiou, 2022. "Exploiting Marketing Methods for Increasing Participation and Engagement in Sustainable Mobility Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Taewoo Nam, 2013. "Citizen Participation in Visioning a Progressive City: A Case Study of Albany 2030," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 139-161, December.
    3. Roland W Scholz & Michael Stauffacher, 2007. "Managing Transition in Clusters: Area Development Negotiations as a Tool for Sustaining Traditional Industries in a Swiss Prealpine Region," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(10), pages 2518-2539, October.
    4. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    5. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    6. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    7. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    8. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Alexander Walter & Roland Scholz, 2007. "Critical success conditions of collaborative methods: a comparative evaluation of transport planning projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-212, March.
    10. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    11. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. repec:ags:ijag24:345027 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    14. Domínguez-Gómez, J. Andrés & González-Gómez, Teresa, 2017. "Analysing stakeholders’ perceptions of golf-course-based tourism: A proposal for developing sustainable tourism projects," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 135-143.
    15. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    16. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    17. repec:lib:000cis:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:26-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Richard Apatewen Azerigyik & Michael Poku-Boansi & Justice Kuffour Owusu-Ansah, 2024. "Herders’ Haven or Farmers’ Foe? Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on Grazing Reserves and Transhumance Corridors," World, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-24, July.
    19. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    20. David Brain, 2005. "From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the Social Agenda of the New Urbanism," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 217-238, April.
    21. Harriet Bulkeley & Tim Rayner, 2003. "New Realism and Local Realities: Local Transport Planning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(1), pages 35-55, January.
    22. Mickey Lauria & Mellone Long, 2017. "Planning Experience and Planners’ Ethics," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(2), pages 202-220, April.

    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:sae:envirb:v:38:y:2011:i:3:p:447-467. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.