Kevin M Leyden1, Amanda Slevin2, Thomas Grey3, Mike Hynes4, Fanney Frisbaek5, Richard Silke6. 1. School of Political Science and Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, 313 Aras Moyola, Galway, Ireland. kevin.leyden@nuigalway.ie. 2. School of Political Science and Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, 220 Áras Moyola, Galway, Ireland. 3. TrinityHaus Research Centre, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, TrinityHaus, 16 Westland Row, Dublin 2, Ireland. 4. School of Political Science & Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Room 323, Áras Moyola, Galway, Ireland. 5. SEEE Solutions Ltd, Sjobergvegen 7, 2066, Jessheim, Norway. 6. School of Political Science and Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review 50 articles from 2015 and 2016 that focus upon public and stakeholder engagement as it pertains to the built environment. Our purpose is to understand the current state of the literature and approaches being used to better enable public and stakeholder engagement. As part of this review, we consider whether recent digital and mobile technologies have enabled advances for stakeholder and public participation. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature suggests some positive and some challenging developments. Researchers clearly suggest that most policy-makers and planners understand, and to some extent, aspire toward enabling more inclusive participatory planning processes. That said, there is far less consensus as to how to make meaningful inclusive participatory processes possible even with digital, as well as more traditional, tools. This lack of consensus is true across all academic disciplines reviewed. We discuss these issues as well as current solutions offered by many scholars. We find that no single solution can be applied to different situations, as contextual factors create different problems in different situations, and that the participation process itself can create biases that can-intentionally or unintentionally-benefit some participants over others. We conclude with a series of questions for practitioners and researchers to consider when evaluating inclusive engagement.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review 50 articles from 2015 and 2016 that focus upon public and stakeholder engagement as it pertains to the built environment. Our purpose is to understand the current state of the literature and approaches being used to better enable public and stakeholder engagement. As part of this review, we consider whether recent digital and mobile technologies have enabled advances for stakeholder and public participation. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature suggests some positive and some challenging developments. Researchers clearly suggest that most policy-makers and planners understand, and to some extent, aspire toward enabling more inclusive participatory planning processes. That said, there is far less consensus as to how to make meaningful inclusive participatory processes possible even with digital, as well as more traditional, tools. This lack of consensus is true across all academic disciplines reviewed. We discuss these issues as well as current solutions offered by many scholars. We find that no single solution can be applied to different situations, as contextual factors create different problems in different situations, and that the participation process itself can create biases that can-intentionally or unintentionally-benefit some participants over others. We conclude with a series of questions for practitioners and researchers to consider when evaluating inclusive engagement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Built environment; Engagement; Planning; Public participation; Stakeholder; Urban
Authors: Katie K Arkema; Gregory M Verutes; Spencer A Wood; Chantalle Clarke-Samuels; Samir Rosado; Maritza Canto; Amy Rosenthal; Mary Ruckelshaus; Gregory Guannel; Jodie Toft; Joe Faries; Jessica M Silver; Robert Griffin; Anne D Guerry Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Katharine Jacobs; Louis Lebel; James Buizer; Lee Addams; Pamela Matson; Ellen McCullough; Po Garden; George Saliba; Timothy Finan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nathan D Shippee; Juan Pablo Domecq Garces; Gabriela J Prutsky Lopez; Zhen Wang; Tarig A Elraiyah; Mohammed Nabhan; Juan P Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; M Hassan Murad Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Lori Frank; Laura Forsythe; Lauren Ellis; Suzanne Schrandt; Sue Sheridan; Jason Gerson; Kristen Konopka; Sarah Daugherty Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Alex Antonio Florindo; Inaian Pignatti Teixeira; Ligia Vizeu Barrozo; Flávia Mori Sarti; Regina Mara Fisberg; Douglas Roque Andrade; Leandro Martin Totaro Garcia Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.295