Web-Based and Traditional Public Participation in Comprehensive Planning: A Comparative Study

Abstract

The present paper examines whether the potential advantages of the expanding practice of web-based public participation only complement the benefits of the traditional techniques, or whether they are empowering enough to replace them. The question is examined in a real-world case of neighborhood revitalization, in which both techniques were practiced simultaneously. Comparisons are made at four major planning junctions, in order to study the contributions of each technique to the qualities of involvement, trust, and empowerment. The results show that web-based participants not only differ from the participation of traditional practices, but they also differ from each other on the basis of their type of web participation. The results indicate that web-based participation is an effective complementary means of public participation, but it cannot replace the traditional unmediated techniques.

An Interdisciplinary and Intersectoral Action-research Method: Case-Study of Climate Change Adaptation by Cities Using Participatory Web 2.0 Urban Design

“…As of August 2013, YouSayCity (www.yousaycity.com) is used by Ville de Montréal for a large online consultation regarding its urban development plan (Office de consultation publique de Montréal, www.ocpm.qc.ca, consulted on 27 August 2013). Slotterback, 2011;Stern et al, 2009). Indeed, having participants engage in dialogue and compromises on the Web is often more easily said than done (Baek et al, 2011, Steininger et al, 2012.…”

“…Researchers agree that digital technologies have the potential to complement, extend and renew participatory processes in planning and urban design (Brabham, 2012;Bugs et al, 2010;Dodge & Kitchin, 2013;Gordon & Manosevitch, 2010;Proulx, 2009;Steiniger et al, 2012;Stern et al, 2009). It is particularly true of Web 2.0 tools and applications that allow participants to take part in the process at anytime and from anywhere, relatively free of pressures (Stern et al, 2009). Digital and social media also allows for a better representation of local stakeholders (Al-Kodmany, 2000), as well as for local knowledge to emerge from both experts and lay people (Foth, 2006).…”

The social media participation framework : studying the effects of social media on nonprofit communities

“…Previous efforts in practice to enhance public participation with electronic web tools did not meet expectations (Anadiotis et al, 2010;Roeder et al, 2005;Stern, Gudes & Svoray, 2009). …”

“…This step is about members working together with citizens, empowering them with responsibilities, tasks and opportunities to collaborate with the party's community. Previous efforts in trying to empower citizens often failed (Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008;Roeder et al, 2005;Stern, Gudes & Svoray, 2009). This was due to immature technology and low user adoption rates.…”

“…Furthermore, our review indicated that existing instruments such as participation ladders from the e-participation field are not directly suitable for evaluating the effects of social media. Finally, the literature review revealed that the available instruments in literature primarily focused on previous web tools such as forums, chat and online surveys instead of social media (Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008;Roeder et al, 2005;Stern, Gudes & Svoray, 2009).…”